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

slightest disfavour towards such a proceeding? (Hear, hear.)
we stated fairly and cordially that if the French Govern-
ment c ,uld establish order and regular government in
Mexico, even though that might be accomplished by a
French army, we thought the step would be for the benefit

of the people of Mexico and for the advantage of all the
nations of Europe having commercial intercourse with that
country. And therefore, far from being an instance of cold-
ness or distrust between the two Governments, the right
hon. gentleman might have mentioned the case of Mexico
as en instance of confidence on our part, well deserved and
well merited by the Government of France. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman stated generally that sarcasm
was a very fit instrument to use in debate. (A. laugh.)
He might have recollected that sarcasm is not a test of
truth—(hear, hear)—and, though very useful as a flourish, it
does not establish an argument unless it is accompanied by
something more solid and substantial. The right hon. gen-
tleman addressed himself mainly to the Schleswig-Holstein
question, and complained that the Government came down
to the house without a policy. First of all, I deny that, and
I will show him by and by that he is in error. But really,
from the manner in which he dealt with the subject, I was
every moment expecting that he would give us his policy.
(Oh, and laughter.) He kept dangling before our eyes a
sort of half expectation that he would offer some suggestion,
but ultimately disappointed us. He promised us support
whenever cur policy should be declared, and for that pro-
mise we feel very thankful, and shall not fail to remind him
when the time comes—(laughter)—bnt he did not conde-
scend to tell us what he thought the policy of the Govern-
ment ought to be. He said the Government had no policy,
but he read a paragraph from the Royal Speech which con-
tains our policy. That has been to endeavour to bring to a
friendly settlement the difterences which have arisen between
Germany and Denmark, connected with the Treaty of 1852.
He says there were no such differences. Why, does not the
right hon. gentleman know that many of the Governments
of Germany have repudiated that treaty and declared that
the Prince of Augustenburg ought to be Duke of Holstein,
in place of the King of Denmark ? Does be net know that
Bavaria was never a party to the treaty, and is therefore
free to act ; and that Wurtemberg, which became a party
by acceding to the treaty, has thrown it over and espoused
the cause of the Prince of Augustenberg ? Does henot know
that Saxony, also a party to the treaty, has pursued the same
course ; and that when the Federal troops entered Holstein
the royal arms were torn down and the Duke of Augusten-
burg declared Prince of Holstein ? And, knowing this, can
he say that there was no difference between Germany and
Denmark as connected with or arising from the Treaty of
1852? 'We have been employed in endeavouring to bring
those difficulties to a friendly settlement. Is that not a
policy, or is it a policy which, according to the tenor of his
argument, the right hon. gentleman condemns? He hints
that the Government were bound, and ought to have gone
to war immediately; that, instead of employing diplomatic
persuasion with a view of preserving peace, we were bound
by our former declarations to rush headlong into war for
the purpose of establishing the Treaty of 1852. That was
not the policy of the Government. (Hear.) We thought it
right and proper to exhaust the means of diplomatic persua-
sion, and to a great extent we have succeeded in that policy.
At the time the Governments of Austria and Prussia seemed
to be hesitating whether they would abide by the treaty or
not, there was a plea set up in Germany that those who had
signed or acceded to the treaty were released from its en-
gagements, because Denmark had not fulfilled another and
a distinct engagement entered into before the treaty in a
separate correspondence, not alluded to in the treaty as
forming one of the conditions, and, therefore, entirely dis-
connected from the treaty. We protested against that idea.
We said, " The Treaty of 1852 is plain, simple, positive,
and unconditional ; there is nothing in it which entitles you
to say that because Denmark has not fulfilled a prior en-
gagement—an engagement, namely, to incorporate Schles-
wig with Denmark—that, therefore, you are released from
your engagement to acknowledge King Christian as king
of all the territories held under the Danish sway. If you
had intended to couple these two things together you ought
to have done so in the treaty of 1852. You could have in-
serted a condition providing that you would only recognise
King Christian if the arrangements were made upon which
you insisted with regard to Schleswig and Denmark. You
did not do so, and you have no right to discharge yourselves
from the obligations of that treaty because the Danes failed
in another and a different quarter." (Hear, hear.) 'We
said, " The failure of Denmark gives you a right of war if
you do not choose to accomplish your object by negotiation
and persuasion— a right of war against the King whom you
are bound by the treaty to acknowledge ; but it does not
give you a right to release yourselves from that treaty and
to acknowledge the Prince of Augustenburg as Duke of
Holstein. (Hear, hear.) There has been a great deal of
negotiation and communication on the subject; and I am
happy to say that within the last very few hours we have
received information from the Austrians and Prussians
that they are prepared to declare that they abide by
the Treaty of 1852, and will maintain the integrity of
the Danish monarchy in accordance with the provi•
sions of that treaty. (Loud cheers.) 'We have no policy I
Is not that a policy ? I sey it is ; that it is a sound policy,
and one which will be approved by the people of this coun-
try. (Cheers.) Speaking fairly and impartially, I must
say that while, on the one hand, I think the Germans have
been guilty of great and unjustifiable aggression, on the
other hand one must confess that the Danes have been
wanting in the fulfilment of their obligations. The patent
of March last was a violation in many of its details of the
Federal laws applicable to the States within the Confedera-
tion, and the Diet called on the late King of Denmark to
revoke that patent, The late King was advised by Minis-
ters who were many of them very able, but yet took too
exclusively Danish a view of matters, and the result was
that he did not and would not revoke that patent. Execu-
tion was decreed by the Diet, and the Diet in exercising
their powers decreed that troops should go into Holstein,
being pert of the Confederation, for the purpose of compel-
ling the Sovereign to revoke the patent. Well, we foresaw
that if the troops of the Confederation, under the excite-
ment which existed in Germany after the death of the late
King, and in the midst of the demands which wore made by
the smaller Powers to upset the treaty and dismemember
Denmark, should go into Holstein for the purpose of exe-
cution revolutionary movements wou:d be got up by the
active party in Germany, and the authority of the Sove-
reign would for the moment be overthrown. We therefore
urged the King of Denmark to lose no time in revoking the
patent, and to put himself in the right with respect to
Germany. He did so; but, nevertheless, execution took
place. The Federal troops marched into Holstein for the
purpose of obtaining the revocation of the patent after the
patent had been actually revoked, (Hear, hear, and a
laugh,) Well, it is fair to say that, for reasons the force
of which we certainly admit, Austria and Prussia moved
in the Diet that that measure should be a measure of exe-
cution, instead of being, what the smaller Powers who
wanted to dismember Denmark recommended, a measure of
occupation—that is to say, occupying Holstein in order that
the Diet might determine who should be Duke. (Hear,
hear.) Well, Austria and Prussia by persuading the Diet
to send their troops into Holste;n as a measure of execution
acted in a manner more friendly to Denmark than if occupa-
tion had taken place. 'We must admit there is force in that.
(Mean) We deny altogether that the Diet has anypower or
any authority whatever to determine who should be Duke
of Holstein. (Hear, hear.) There is not one word in the
Federal Act of 1815, which forms the earliest of the treaties,
which gives any such power or authority to the Diet of
Frankfort, nor anything in the final Act of 1820, which was
an Act of the Diet, which gives any such power; and,
therefore, we contend it would be an act of usurpation to
declare the Prince of Augustenburg Duke of Holstein.
(Hear, hear.) But the moment that Austria and Prussia
persuaded the Diet to send in troops by way of execution the
question, as far as Austria and Prussia were concerned, was
settled. (Hear.) Then came the other point—namely, the
Constitution of last year, which we must admit did virtually
if not actually tend to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark
—(hear)—because it established a Parliament for both ; and
in the negotiations which preceded the conclusion of the
treaty in 1852 two agreements were made, one balancing the
other—an agreement by Denmark that she would not in-
corporate or do anything that would tend to incorporate
Schleswig with Denmark, and an agreement by Austria and
Prussia on behalf of Germany that they would forego all
those claims and demands which up to that time had been
made for an administrative and political union of Holstein
with Schleswig. (Hear, hear.) 'Well, Austria and Prussia
now claim the fulfilment of the first of those agreements.
But the Government of Denmark unfortunately—I will not
say why or how—sanctioned upon the accession of the
present King the Constitution of November, which was
so objectionable, and the Parliament, which might have
revoked its own Act, was dissolved, and therefore
in December last there was no authority that
could legally and constitutionally comply with what
we admit to be the just demands of Austria and
Prussia with regard to Schleswig. (Hear.) In that state
of things Austria and Prussia summoned the Danish
their Go-
vernment
summonsto r revoke ka es
stoh
lei
nslit ed in .Constitutionpoin;t but,
timune thfortautniattwelays,
physically impossible it could lee complied with. (Hear.)
When you call for an impossibility and threaten violence if
that impossibility is not done, you put yourselves in the
wrong. (Hear.) Such was the menace of Austria and
Prussia. Well, we, in conjunction with France, Russia,
and Sweden—we have no policy as the right hon. gentle-
man says—(a laugh)—but it so happens by some accommo-
dation of circumstances, call it what you like—we and other
Powers who ,think with us urged Austria and Prussia to
wait and give the time necessary to assemble the Danish
Parliament and propose to it the revocation of the Constitu-
tion. Unfortunately, that advice has not been complied
with. The Austrian and Prussian troops have entered
Schleswig violently, although the Danish Government, at
our urgent request and that of the other Powers whom I
have mentioned, formally promised to lose no time in con-
voking Parliament and proposing the revocation of the
November Constitution. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless,
although the demands of Austria and Prussia are virtually
conceded, that is to say, they would be conceded as soon
as it was practicable to do so, they have forcibly entered
the territory ,of Schleswig, and, as everybody knows, a
contest has arisen, most lamentably, and, as we think, most
unjustifiably. (Hear, hear.) We made many applications
to prevent this—we have no policy to defend—but it was
done:somehow or other. (Hear, hear.) But after the two
Powers had refused to give Denmark the time necessary to