The Express.
London, England, 1861-01-30 00:00:00

' general Parliament at Copenhagen, ho adds :
" On our part, we have not the slightest objection
" to such an arrangement ; and if a contrary ink.-
" rence has been drawn by Lord JOHN Rugsm.i.
" from my despatch of the Bth, this can only pro-
" coed from a misinterpretation of my views. Nor
" did we, as Lord JOHN Muslims. supposes, ever
" reject the plan of an equal representation for
" the different countries. On the contrary, we
" hare affrays urged the Danish Government to
" fulfil the promise that the Monarchy should be
" granted a constitutiou, he4owing U/‘ equal amount
" rights upon each f the various countries con-
" tint; it." We emphasise the sentence
in italics because it would be difficult for
the most audacious diplomatic cunning and
duplicity to go beyond it. The natural infer-
ence on reading it is that the Prussian Govern-
ment had supported a constitutional scheme
of general representation. What it really
means is that the Prussian Government upheld the
irrational claim of Holstein, that each Duchy
should have tho same number of members as
Denmark Proper, by which the German Duchies,
with less than a third of the population, would have
outvoted the entire Kingdom. It is in substance
precisely the same proposal as it would be to give
Scotland, Ireland, and Wales the same number of
parliamentary representatives as England.
Thu other main point in which Baron Scinansirz
seriously misinterprets the English Minister's
despatch relates to the right of interference in
Schleswig. Lord JOHN RUSSELL points out that
in the correspondence of 1851 there is a'
" distinct renunciation on the part of Austria
" and Prussia on behalf of the German Confede-
" ration of any competence to extend iho federal'
" law over Schleswig." He adds, however, that
the promises contained in the King of DE:QUARK'S
proclamations of that date his Danish MAJESTY is
bound in honour to fulful. These promises,
however, referred to principles of government, not
to the details of administration. On this latter
point the British Minister is most explicit. "But
" neither in form nor in substance, as it appears
"to her Ms.inerv's Government, do these pro-1
" miser give a right to Austria and Prussia, or to
" the German Confederation collectively, to in-
" terfere in all the details of administration in the
" Danish Duchy of Schleswig. If Schleswig were
" incorporated with Denmark, if Schleswig were
" deprived of its separate constitution, Germany
" might claim a right to interfere. But if the
" regulation of each Church and each School in
" Schleswig were to be the subject of interference
"by the German Confederation, it is clear
" that the sovereign rights of the King
"of DENMARK would exist only in name."
It is these very details, however—details of the
smallest kind—which constitute the ground of the
Prussian interference in Schleswig. Baron
Scautiwirs represent/ Lord JOHN RUSSELL as ap-
proving of the principle on which Prussia and the
German Confederation claim to interfere in
Schleswig, while he denies that any attempt has
been made to meddle with the details of adminis-
tration. But nothing could well be a smaller
point of administrative detail than the language to
be used in the common school of a Schleswig
village, where half the population are Germans
and half Danes. Yet this is one of the main points
in which Prussia claims the right of interference.