The Sun.
London, England, 1864-06-28 00:00:00

THE MIN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1864.

were invested with that animation which only arises

from great political excitement. The strangers' gallery

was full to overflowing, and that portion of it reserved.
for distinguished foreigners was occupied by the leading

diplomatic representatives of the principal European states.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I rise to move that these
papers be printed, and, in doin;,, so, I am quite aware there
never was an occasion possibly upon which a Minister of
the Crown had to make a statement—short and simple as
I intend to make it—to this House of Parliament, and

through it to the public, tpon which the feelings of the
country, the sympathies of the country, the aspirations,
I may say the anxieties of the country, were more

deeply engaged than on the question with regard to which it
is my duty during a short time to detain the House. For the

sympathy which the British nation has felt in the cause of
Denmark will do honour to them in all times. I stand here,
however, not to excite those sympathies, or to profit by
them. I stand here on this occasion simp:y to communi-

cate to the House, in a short abstract, the substance of those
proceedings at the Conference which are recorded in detail
in the papers now laid upon the table. And I may say
that, although on Friday I doubted whether the record of
the proceedings of Saturday would be sufficiently ready to
be laid in conjunction with the preceding papers upon the
table, I am now able to say that they will be delivered to-
mcrrow morning equally with the other papers relating
to the Conference. (Hear, hear.) And among them
will be found an abstract of the proceedings of the
Conference, drawn up by one of the plenipotentiaries,
which will greatly assist honourable members in making
themselves masters of the more detailed contents of the
protocols. But to explain more fully, and to make the House
understand completely the nature of the questions treated
of in the Conference, it will ba necessary for me to go a little
farther back, and to make some remarks upon the Treaty of
1852, out of which the subsequent controversy originated.
The House, however, is sufficiently familiar with that trans-
action and its origin to make it unnecessary for me to do
more than give a general outline of the transactions to which
I allude. The Treaty of 1852 was, I should say, a treaty
negotiated by myself ; by Lord Granville who succeeded me;
and concluded by Lord Malmesbury, who succeeded him,
So far, therefore, as the policy of that Treaty is concerned,
all parties in this country are equally bound up. (Hear,
hear.) It was founded upon European considerations; it
did not originate simply with England—(hear, hear)—it
was an arrangement dictated by European interests. The
state of the matter was this. The _

mark admitted the succession of females ; the law of succes-
sion in Holstein confined the succession to males. If,
therefore, any case should arise in which there was any
default of issue male in Denmark, it was clear that by the
operation of those conflicting laws Denmark and Holstein
would be separated. But the late King of Denmark, ad-
vanced in years, had no offspring, and the Prince who would
have been his immediate successor, had he outlived the King
his uncle, had no offspring either ; and therefore the Powers
of Europe thought it necessary to take into consideration
the means of preventing the splitting up of the Danish
monarchy, which they felt to be inconsistent with the gene-
ral interests of Europe and the balance of power in the
North. For this purpose it was necessary to assimilate the
laws of succession in the two parts of the Danish monarchy.
To alter the law of succession in Holstein was impossible,
because it formed part of the law of the Germanic Confede-
ration. The other expedient was adopted, and it was deter-
mined that the lex regia of Denmark should be altered, and
that males only should succeed to the Danish crown. It was
also provided that the King of Denmark should have the
power of naming his successor to the crown of Denmark ;
and an arrangement should be made by which his suczessor
should also succeed to the D achy of Holstein. These arrange-
ments were the objects of the Treaty of 1852. The King
of Denmark chose as his successor Prince Christian of
Glucksburg, and there being a question of the rights of the
House of Augustenburg to the Duchy of Holstein, that
right was commuted for a pecuniary indemnity. The Duke
of Augustenburg, having been in rebellion against the King
of Denmark upon a former occasion and his estates having
been confiscated, the value of those estates was given to
him on condition of his renouncing for himself and his suc-
cessors all claims to the duchy of Holstein. The Treaty of
1852, therefore, provided, so far as the powers of foresight
of the parties could go for maintaining the integrities of the
Danish monarchy, as it was then constituted, by the poses-
sion, on the part of Denmark, of the duchies of Schleswig
and Holstein. That treaty was greatly approved of by all
parties concerned in it. A question, however, arose whe-
ther, as Holstein was affected by that treaty, it should be
submitted to the concurrence of the Diet at Frankfort. The
asking for that accession was objected to at first by all the
parties concerned—by Germany, Russia, Sweden, and Den-
mark. My noble friend, Lord Granville, who then held

the seals of the Foreign-office, did, however, propose that

that treaty, before it was concluded, should be submitted to
the Federal Diet. On the contrary, it would be seen by the

papers on the table that some parties expressed dismay at
the proposal. their dismay arising from the delay that
woulci attend such an application ; and a different mode was
adopted, namely, that whereas the Diet consists only of re•
presentatives of the different Germanic Powers, application

should be made to those Powers themselves to accede to the
treaty which had been concluded. That application was
made, and several of the Powers agreed to it; but it is right
to say that some other Powers, including Bavaria and
Baden, declined to assent to the treaty, in consequence of
feelings connected with German opinion as bearing on the

duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. Well, VI-, that treaty
was preceded by certain diplomatic communications be-
tween Germany and Denmark which led to various ar-

rangements ; but the material part of the communication
was this, that whereas, on one part, the great object of
Denmark had always been to incorporate Schleswig with

Denmark; and whereas, on the other hand, the great object
fur which the Germans hail always contended was the poli
tical and administrative union of Schleswig with Holstein,
both should give up their respective pretensions ; that the
Kon the one hand, should agree not to
incorporate with Denmark, and, on the other
hand, Germans should agree no longer to recognise
the political union of Schleswig with Holstein. such was
the state of matters a; the conclusion of that treaty ; and it
ng
thatf Denmark,
the Schleswig

all parties had equally animated by that spirit of con- '
ciliation, andlbeemany
ea_
y of justice, it would have been batter
for both, lam not aware that any serious complication
Danish
Government
have arisen. Lut during the ten years which elapsed
between the conclusion of that treaty and the death of the
late King of Denmark a series of mutual complaints arose.
The Germans concltdod, and I am afraid not without some
hear, from the benches behind Ministers)—
thate
had not acted fairly in their
reason—(hear,
treatment t°mtn h—en (t
hocfa ther
Getman population in Schleswig ; that in
their extreme anxiety to extend Danish power they had in
some degree interfered with the free exercise by the German
population of Schleswig; of those privileges which belonged
to the subjects of eery free State. Also it is to be borne
in mind that there was, in March of last year, a patent—
that is, a constitu ion—proclaimed by the late King of
Denmark for Holstein, which the Germanic Confederation
declared in its details to be at variance with the general laws
of the Confederation and, moreover, in November last, a
constitution was pasted at Copenhagen for Denmark and
Schleswig, which till Germans contended was at variance
with the engagement entered into in 1851 and 1852 by
Denmark, not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark.
The late King of Denmark died while those questions were
under discussion in Ilermany and Denmark, the patent of
March remained in force; and the present King found it
necessary, upon cmiderations connected with internal
matters arising from his recent succession to the throne, to
give his sanction to hat constitution of November, which
at that time had not received the royal assent. Germany
remonstrated againd both these arrangements. In
October the Diet had passed a resolution that Fe.
deral troops should enter Holstein, for the purpose of
compelling the Duke:of Holstein, the King of Denmark, to
revoke the patent of March. I will deal with that question
first. Her Majesty's Government, thinking that there were
grounds for the German objections to that patent, urged the
Danish Government to revoke, and to place themselves in
the right thereby. (Hear, hear, from the benches behind
Ministers). The Danish Government did so. (Counter
cries of Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches.) But the
Diet came to change its ground. Instead of contenting it-
self, as it had done at the death of the late King, with dis-
puting the right of the Duke of Holstein to give that con-
stitution, which they considered was at variance with the
general law, they took another ground, and contended that
the question had fairly arisen who should be Duke of Hol-
stein. A proposal was then brought forward in the Diet
that Holstein should be occupied by Federal troops until
that question had been decided. They denied that the pre-
sent King of Denmark had succeeded legally to the duchy,
of Holstein, and a proposal was made to the Diet to occupy
Holstein until the question had been decided by the Diet,
It is my opinion the Diet had no right, and has no right, to
consider and decide that question. (Hear, hear.) There is
nothing, in my opinion, either in the treaty of 1815 which
constituted the Diet, which gave it its birth and origin—
there is nothing in that treaty, and there is nothing in the
final Act of 1820, which completed the arrangements which
entitled the Diet to determine who should succeed to any
State within the Confederation. (Hear, hear.) And lam
quite sure that when the Emperor of Austria resigned, and
was succeeded by a member of his family, the Diet did not
claim any right to sa} who should succeed him : but Aus-
tria and Prussia moved in the Diet, not that the Federal
troops should not enter Holstein, but that the entrance
of
those troops should be what is called an execution, and not
an occupation. Now, by " execution" is meant the action
of the Diet, in accordance with the rights of the Diet and
with German laws, to compel any sovereign of territory
belonging to the Confederation to adapt legislation to the
laws of the Confederation, if those laws should have been
broken. Austria and Prussia carried that proposal, and
the Diet resolved, not that the entrance of the troops
should bear the character of an occupation to hold the
duchy of Holstein until the rightful heir should be deter-
mined, but that entrance should be an act of execution to
compel the then existing Duke to alter the patent or revoke
it, and make it in accordance with German legislation. The
entrance, therefore, of the Federal troops into Holstein as a
measure of execution was a distinct acknowledgement by
the Diet at the time that the King of Denmark was Duke of
Holstein, and it was to compel the King of Denmark to re-
voke the patent of March that that execution took place.
(Hear.) There is also this to be remembered that, whereas
it would have been perfectly legitimate for that execution