The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-05 00:00:00

scribe as a policy of absolute and positive renunciation and
refusal. (Cheers.) Now I come to the revocation of the
patent. The right hen. gentleman says the Danes revoked
the patent on the recommendation, and abandoned resistance
in Holstein on the recommendation of herMajesty'sGovern-
ment, and that they approved the new constitution when we
asked them to do so. lam not here to bring an indictment
against the Danes. When we recollect that the throne of
Denmark is occupied by a sovereign who succeeded to it
under circumstances of great difficulty, and with an inheri-
tance of embarrassment caused by the conduct of his prede-
cessor and the policy of the Ministers whom he found in
power, I for one am not able to say with confidence that it
was within the means of the present King of Denmark to
unravel the difficulties with which he found himself beset;
but at the same time I beg to say with respect to this, as
well as to the other main allegations of the right hon. gen-
tleman, they are without the slightest foundation—(oh, oh)
—and are not borne out by any of the quotations which he
has made. He says that the Danes did this at our instance,
My answer is that they did it at the joint instance of the
Powers. He says they did it when we requested them to
do so. My answer is, they were not done until the conces-
sion was too late, and was valueless for the purpose for
which it was required. Now, let us see how the truth
stands. I say, for the sake of wounding the Government,
he fixes on the country responsibilities which she does not
bear. Do not let it be supposed that this is a matter to be
settled between party and party in the House of Commons,
because England is bound by the engagements of her
Ministers—(hear, hear)—and if the engagements are made
by us, the right hon. gentleman, on his accession to power,
would be bound to fulfil them in the sense which we attach
to them. He says Denmark revoked the patent on our re-
commendation, and that that constituted a quasi-engage-
ment on our part. What is the fact ? On the 7th of October
the British Government remonstrated against the patent,
and advised its revocation. When was it revoked ? On the
7th of December, two months after; and not two months
measured by time in the ordinary way, but by events of the
greatest consequence. The new constitution had been
passed, and the revocation of the patent when it came, as
plainly appears from the conversation of Lord Wodehouse,
was of the smallest importance. So much for the revocation
of the patent. I think I heard the right hon gentleman say
that M. Hall offered to revoke the patent in the month of
October. I am aware that an offer was made in October to
revoke it, but it was a conditional offer, for M. Hall stated
that one of the conditions on which the patent would be
withdrawn, would be that England and France should give
the Danish Government a formal promise of ca-operation. In
point of fact, the revocation was withheld during the time it
was of use, and granted only when it was of the smallest
possible importance. The right hon. gentleman also said
that on three great subjects Denmark had also acted upon
our udvcie, and that contrary to her policy. Did the
right hon. gentleman mean to say that Denmark acted
upon our advice alone (Hear, hear.) If he means to
say that, I affirm that there is not the smallest founda-
tion for the statement. If he moans to say that Den-
mark acted at the instance of other Powers also, there is
not the slightest force or value in his statement, because
the concession made by Denmark was at the recommenda-
tion of all, and therefore there is no separate responsibi-
lity, as the right hon. gentleman would endeavour to show.
I think it is pretty clear, first, that the advice to the
Danish Government was common advice; and, secondly,
that it was advice in regard to which they were dis-
tinctly informed that her Majesty's Government could
not be responsible for the consequences of the decision
Denmark might take with respect to Federal execution.
It is just the same with regard to the new constitution.
The right hon. gentleman says that England was selfishly
silent upon the subject of the new constitution. He gave
the House to understand that when good might have
been done by remonstrance—England left Denmark to
take her own course; and subsequently, when it became
difficult for Denmark to recede, then England came with
inopportune advice, and desired that the new constitution
might be revoked—selfishly silent at that critical moment
when the King of Denmark had just come into his too
burdensome heritage, and even with this unhappy and ill-
omened bill waiting his decision. I think it was on Nov,
15 that he came to the throne, and on the 17th my noble
friend (Earl Russell) wrote to Lord A. Paget, unwilling to
force advice upon the King at that critical moment, but
indicating that his advice would be that the new constitu-
tion should be suspended. The right hon. gentleman
quoted the despatch in support of his statement, and con-
tinued—Unhappily that advice was not acted upon. Un-
happily, the position of the King, in the face of the popu-
lace of Copenhagen, appears to have been such as to make
it impossible for him to take the course which, in the
opinion of her Majesty's Government and in the opinion of
the other neutral Governments, international obligations
strictly interpreted required. Consequently the complica-
tions which existed underwentgreat and serious aggravation.
Unhappily, the revocation of the constitution, like the other
concession, although made, was made too late. (Cheers.)
On I' ov. 17 Earl Russell suggested suspension of the con-
stitution ; the Danish Parliament was still sitting, and
would have had power to revoke it, but unhappily the
Danish Minister, who, I fear, has unintentionally been one
of the worst enemies to Denmark, permitted the Parliament
to be dissolved without touching the constitution, and so
let the King into a state of hopeless embarrassment. At
last, on Jan. 19, when Federal execution was far advanced
in Holstein, and when the Prussian and Austrian forces
! were about to eater Schleswig, then it was that for the
first time an offer was made by the Danish Minister, Bishop
Monrad, to call together the Rigsraed, and revoke the con-
stitution. The statement therefore of the right hon. gen-
tleman is either wholly fallacious, if it be not directly the
reverse of truth. These are the specific allegations made by
the right hon. gentleman, and I will now, with some diffi-
dence and apprehension, venture to explain what I take to
have been the principles and policy of the Government in
this matter. The right hon, gentleman stated with truth
that a considerable change was effected in the position of
this question by the death of the King of Deninatk. The
death of King Frederick VII. altered the position of affairs
in respect to the treaty of 1852. It immediately laid the
whole strain upon that treaty and upon its construction. As
long as Frederick VII. was alive there was nothing but a
question of international engegement. The matter in dis-

pute was whether international covenant;;dbeenfUlifed

or not. There was no question of disputed title; but when
Frederick VII. died, and King Christian IX. came to the
throne, the question of succession, connected with various
constructions of the treaty, immensely aggravated the ques.
tion. The policy of her Majesty's Government under Fre-
derick VII. had been to endeavour to bring the Danes to
fulfil the treaty of 1852, "and to bring the Germans to be
moderate in their views. But the right hon, gentleman ap-
pears to make it a charge against the present Government
that they should have taken, as it were, gratuitously, and
needlessly, a prominent part in the settlement of those
matters. He says truly that England has no peculiar in •
terest in these qu-stions, It has been said by my noble
friend (Earl Russell) more than once in these despatches,
that the interests of England in the Dano-German question
are the interests of Europe. We can conceive that France,
for traditional association, and also for her peculiar relations
with Germany, might have a special and direct interest in
any such questions as would be involved in the absorption
of Denmark into Germany; we can conceive that Russia,
principally dependent upon the Baltic for access to the great
ccean countries of the world, might feel a very strong and
peculiar interest in the question whether D:nmark and
Sweden were to be united into one Scandinavian kingdom;
but England has no special and separate interest. Why then
did she take—it was certainly a Prominent—part in these
negotiations ? She took part on account of what I hope will
ever be dearer to England than her interests,—viz•t on ac-
count of what she thought her honour and her duty.
(Cheers.) Gentlemen must look to the previous stages of the
question if they wish to appreciate the position of England
during the recent complications. At the period of the
war, in 1849, the mediation of England was invited by the
contending parties—(hear)'originally at the suggestion
of Prussia, and adopted by Denmark, and forwarded to my
noble friend (Earl Russell),
Who was then Secretary of
State, and by him undertaken. That was a great responsi-
bility, but was it a barren one? On the contrary, it ended
in the cessation of the shedding
of human blood, being in
terms of pacification, in treaties which were deemed by both
parties honourable and satisfactory. The rignt hon. gentle-
man quoted the expressions of thankful acknowledgment to
Lord Palmerston from Denhrs efforts, and continued: mark for the successful result of
After proceedings of that kind
so beneficial to both parties, and so honourable to this coun-
try—(cheers) —it was not
Possible for the representative of
England to recede from the
Prominent post in which he had
been placed by no act of his own, but by the obligations re-
sulting from former transactions of the most satisfactory and
beneficial kind. Here, I think, is a full and ample explana-
tion of the conduct and
general position assumed by my
noble friend with regard to the Danish negotiations.
(Cheers) I really wish the right hon. gentleman, in attack-
ing his opponents, would remember his country. (Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman says that it was to Russia that
settlement was due. I have quoted the authentic words
which show that my noble friend was the person who was
regarded by Denmark as the principal. Upon the acces-
sion of the new King the duty and endeavour of the Bri-
tish Government was to maintain the treaty of 1852. Was
that right or wrong ?
that the right non. Now, is it honourable to Parliament
gentleman should come down here, and
in mimic voice hold up to ridicule the conduct of the Ad-
ministration, because they instruct their representatives
abroad to apply to France and Russia--co-signataries—for
assistance in giving effect to a great treaty ? Why, the right
hon. gentleman in one of his declamatory bursts towards
the close of his speech, totally forgot the argumentative
part where he exhibited it as preposterous meanness on
the part of England that she should apply to France and
Russia. In the declamatory part he came round to better
sense than he exhibited in the logical and argumentative
part, for he said that with England and France united
war is difficult, apd with England, France, and Russia
united, war is impossible. (Cheers, and counter cheers.)
Well, but the whole of the steps taken by her Majesty's
Government, almost without exception, were steps taken to
endeavour to bind together the powers of Europe for the
fulfilment and maintenance of an important European en-
gagement. (Cheers.) For some time after the death of the
late King there was no great reason to suppose that the
Treaty of 1852 was in serious danger. It was only at the
end of November that the new doctrine was coined in Prus-