The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-05 00:00:00

Germany and Denmark. (Hear.) Upon that subject I can
only give your lordships a bare outline of the course which
has been taken, of the views taken by the German powers,
and of the views which her Majesty's Government have
taken. In the first place, during the reign of the late King
of Denmark the Diet of Frankfort came to a resolution upon
the subject. But before Igo into the details I must state
that there were two in fact separate questions, although
they have been very much mixed up with each other. In
the year 1850, in the month of July, there was a meeting at
the Foreign-office, at which Austria, France, Great Britain,
and Russia were represented, at which it was agreed—at
least by Great Britain, France, and Russia—that the main-
tenan,ce of the integrity of the Danish monarchy was an
object connected with the balance of power and conducive
to the peace of Europe. On the 2d of August of the same
year that proposition was reduced to a protocol, consisting
of several articles, one of which was specially directed to
the desirability of maintaiting the integrity of the Danish
monarchy, and another commended the wisdom of the King
of Denmark in endeavouring to provide and arrange such a
succession to the crown of Denmark as might enable his
successor to fulfil his federal obligations. On the 23d of
August Austria acceded to that. The war in Holstein, and
the negotiations which took place afterwards, all ended in
the treaty of May, 1852, which proceeded upon the state-
ments made in 18.50—the treaty signed by the noble earl
opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury)—and which recognised
the succession to the crown of Denmark, and all the terri-
tories then under the sceptre of Denmark, in the person of
Prince Christian, now Christian IX. of Denmark. It is true.
the Government of Saxony did not use the term "accede,"
but used the term " assent," and they used it with an appli-
cation of terms of eulogy upon the framers of the treaty
which wouldhave.induced:any Government —either the pre-
sent Government or that of the noble earl opposite—to ex-
pect that this power would have been one of the first to main.
tain and recognise the benefits of the treaty of 1852. With
the despatch of the minister of the King of Saxony of Dec.
9, 1852, before them, the least that any Government of
Europe could expect would have been that the first to ris in
favour of the treaty would have been the King of Saxony.
Yet one of the main movers and agitators against the treaty
of 1852 has been this very Saxon minister that signed the
letter to which I have alluded. I hope this will be taken as
an instance of the difficulties which any Government must
experience in dealing with a question under these circum •
stances—of the difficulty which must be found in maintain-
ing a treaty, when the very persons who acknowledged its
powers and obligations are among the first to destroy its
provisions and to denounce its tendency. (Hear, hear.)
There az e other engagements with which her Majesty's Go-
vernment have nothing directly to do, which were a conse-
quence of the war carried on in Schleswig, and engagements
taken by the King with regard to certain portions of his do-
minions. The King engaged to fulfil all his federal obliga-
tions, and Austria and Prussia engaged, on their part, to
respect the decision of the King of Denmark that Holstein
and Schleswig should be entirely separated and not reunited.
I quite agree with the noble earl in his expression of regret
that these engagements did not form part of any treaty or
convention, but were contained only in the notes of the
Austrian and Prussian ministers on the one side and of the
Danish minister on the other, They were followed up by a
proclamation of the King of Denmark, which is considered
by the Germans to be in accordance with and in pursuance
of the treaty. There has been ever since 1851 a controversy
going on between Germany and Denmark. Germany re-
proaches Denmark with not having fulfilled her part of the
obligations, with not having governed Holstein according
to the federal ties. The Danes on their side say that the
demands made by Germany and their interpretation of the
engagements of the treaty were such that it would be im-
possible for Denmark to comply with them. I believe there
is a great deal of truth in both these accusations. Lord
Wodehouse, who spoke last year on the subject, said the
King of Denmark was bound in honour to fulfil his engage-
ments, but that Germany was bound not to make it impos-
sible for him to fulfil them. tiuch being the state of the
case, with this constant and bitter controversy going on, the
German Diet came to the conclusion on the Ist of October
to order the federal execution to take place. But they did not
observe the rule which they ought to have observed, that
the only territory of Holstein, and that they ought not
therefore to go beyond its limits. They, on the contrary,
put into the decree various other decrees which had since
1858 been passed by the Federal Diet, one of which was
that there should be a common constitution in which each
of the four parts of the Danish dominion should have a
separate government and constitution, not dependent upon
the rest. The interpretation which the Germans had given
to this was that the Danes being the majority, and the Ger-
mans the minority in the proportion of 10 to 16, the minority
should have the power in the general parliament of Copen-
hagen of becoming a majority and governing the whole
kingdom. Her Majesty's Government represented to the
Diet that it was impossible that part of the decree could

stand, and that it was destructive to the interests of the
Danish monarchy. That proposition has been with drawn
and is no longer, as I understand insisted upon, That decree
was in course of execution when on the 15th Nov. the King
o t Denmark died: From that moment there has been increased
agitation in Germany, and the subject of that agitation has
not been the federal rights which from 1851 have formed the
matter in dispute, not the fulfilment by Denmark of her en-
gagements with respect to Sleswig and Holstein, but the
question of the succession to the crown, a question most hap-

pily and wisely settled by the treaty of 1852. The German

Diet had taken a very extraordinary course in the question,
and when I say so I do not except the great powers of Aus-
tria and Prussia, because I really think their course has
been most unintelligible. It is obvious that there were two
courses to be taken. Germany might have said, we entirely
repel the treaty of 18E2, we acknowledge the Prince
of Augustenburg as Duke of Holstein, and we will send oar
armies to ensure to him the succession of the duchy of
Schleswig which he claims as well. That would have been
a course which would have been inconsistent with the treaties
that have been signed, it would have been a course involv-

ing the destruction of Denmark—it would have destroyed
the integrity of the Danish monarchy, and it would have
establish the supremacy of Germany in Denmark, but at
the same time it would have been a clear and decided course
There is another course which everybody expected, that at
least Austria and Prussia would have followed, which was
to say, "We have already decided to recognize Prince
Christian as the successor to the Danish monarchy and to
the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, we will not depart
from our engagements in that respect, we knew perfectly
well the right of the Diet when we signed these treaties,
and we did not regard them as at all controlling our power
or diminishing our rights. We hold to the succession as
established, and while we agree in the federal obligations
we cannot for a moment listen to these pretensions." They
did not take that course—Austria and Prussia were left
almost alone, but they concurred that the question of the
succession should be suspended. Now the fact is that this

impression was at the bottom of the whole dispute. What,
then, became the.character of the federal execution ? On the
one side it was execution against the King of Denmark as
rightful Duke of Holstein, and it was justly said that, as he
had inherited the rights he also inherited the wrongs of his
predecessor, and that if the late king had not governed Hol-
stein according to federal rights, federal execution was neces-
sary. But, unhappily, Saxony and some other powers who
were to take part in that execution did not recognize Prince
Christian, and Prussia herself did not receive him in Berlin.
When the foreign troops arrived in Holstein all the royal
insignia of the King of Denmari were torn down, and the
Duke of Augustenburg was allowed to canvass the whole
country. Nothing could be more inconvenient than this
double course of the two powers—Austria and Prussia;
but on the 13th January they made another proposition,
and that was that they should hold Schleswig as a material
guarantee in order to enable the German Diet to enforce the
obligations of 1851. The other Powers said that that would
be inconsistent with their declaration that the Duke of
Augustenburg was Duke of Schleswig, because if you go
into Schleswig on these grounds you acknowledge the right
of Denmark, Austria, and Prussia to go into Schleswig to
maintain the material guarantee; but, at the same time,
there is obviously some disposition to promote the cause of
the Duke of Augustenburg. On the Ist October I pointed
out in what way the federal execution went beyond the
powers of the Diet, and we afterwards proposed a conference,

- -
at which all the Powers that had signed the treaty of Lon-
don should be represented, and on the 31st December fol-
lowing a despatch was communicated, in which we recom-
mended the Diet rather to submit the question in dispute to
friendly Powers than to force on a war of which no one could
foresee the issue. (Hear.) That proposition was referred
to a committee, but that committee has, I believe, never re-
ported. Several persons have told us that it would be quite
impossible to send representatives to any conference, because
they differed so such amongst themselves that it would be
quite impossible for any individual properly to represent
them. (Hear, hear.) At the same time, however, the pro-
ceedings of Austria and Prussia went on, and I cannot won-
der that Austria and Prussia should take the matter into
their own hands, and refuse to submit to the Diet ; for when
you consider what these Powers are, and the extent of their
resources, it would be ridiculous to suppose that they would
leave the decision of such questions io the Duke of Coburg
or other small potentates. It would have bean really too
much to expect. (Hear, hear.) But the conduct of Austria
and Prussia themselves has been almost as unintelligible es
that of the smaller Powers, and, I must add, nearly as re-
prehensible, because, having determined upon going into
Holstein they sent to Denmark a requisition to revoke the
constitution of November last in 48 hours. 'We were of
opinion that this constitution was inconsistent with the
engagements of 1851, and in November or December
we discovered that other persons were of the same
opinion, for the Government of the Emperor of Russia
then communicated to us a proposal that a person should
cw be
oi
nathm o
tsentneh nhe
di fromconstitution
ofdnt
hstaccession,theiet theu tsiaoßussianaoeconstitution
(llBcasot
course,lu:. t
th t
Telt
hsos
a6aenem3oFd:
French
irnmacbt
accordingly
Itao t e
advise King
the Chris-
tian
re-
vocation
inconsistentniy
noble
re -
nGovernmentg
friend (Lord Wodehouse) proceeded to Copenhagen and ad-
vised the revocation of the constitution, whilst the French
and Swedish envoys, without making any particular recom-
mendation as to that constitution, urged upon the King of
Denmark to do everything to conciliate the German Gover-
nments, and to fulfil all his engagements. The mission was
not at first successful. Most unfortunately, the Minister
who had then for some time ruled in Denmark under the
late King, being no doubt most patriotic in his views, was