The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-20 00:00:00

DENMARK.

Mr OSBORNE drew the attention of the house to the
effect of oar foreign policy in Denmark and the Duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein; and moved that it was both
unjust and inexpedient to insist on the provisions of the
Treaty of London, 1852, so far as they related to the order
of succession in the Duchies of Schleswig and
Holstein, as a basis for the settlement of the
Dana-German dispute; and, address for copy of all answers
returned by the Germanic Confederation and the Foyers
who have been invited to attend the approaching Confe-
rence. The hon. member said—Whatever may to the faults
or shortcomings of the House of Commons, it can hardly he
attributed to us that we are of an impatient or inquisitive
turn of mind. For although professing the greatest interest
in their sanguinary contest now going on in the north of
Europe, and in spite of five bulky volumes having been pub-
lished, containing upwards of 1,e15 despatches, up to the
present moment no inquiry has been made into those bulky
volumes—no discussion has yet taken place upon the policy
°f her Majesty's Ministers. Whatever else may be attri-
buted to me, I do not thick I am acting in a premature
manner in bringing the subject under the consideration of
Parliament. In doing so I shall endeavour to avoid the
genealogies, and all the other mystifications by which it
has been endeavoured to sink the question of Schleswig-
Holstein. I know it has been laid down, upon the highest
authority, that this question is above the comprehension of
the ordinary parliamentary intelleet—(laughter)—that, like
the mysteries of Eleusis, none but the favoured hierophants
of the Cabinet can unravel its mysteries and explain its
origin. Even upon a recent occasion, one of the most skilful
members of the Cabinet, the right hon. member for Ashton
(Mr. M. Gibson) declared to his constituents his utter in-
ability to comprehend the points at issue between Denmark
and the duchies, and his resolution to leave the matter to
b 3 elucidated by the German professors. (A laugh.) This,
too, at a time when the Cabinet of which the right hon.
gentleman is a member were consulting upon the expe-
diency of going to war with GermanY. Let me hope that
the House of Commons will not follow the fatal example of
my right hon. friend ; for although this subject has been
mystified by mediaeval research
in
, and obscured by profes-
sorial explanations, it is simple its origin and easy of
comprehension. Had not diplomacy rushed in with its ex •
pedients the question would long ago have settled itself.
But when diplomacy came and manufactured a succession,
and so upset the rights of the people, the question became in-
extricably =fumed. To what is all this bloodshed and con-
fusion in the north of Europe to be attributed ? I am one of
that small and faithful band who attribute all this confu-
sion to the treaty of London in 1852, which was concocted
by the noble lord the present First Minister of the Crown,
and eniorsed by another noble lord, whom I do not blame,

ltl
inasmuch as he had recently accepted the seals of the Fo-
reign Office, and could not be supposed to be acquainted
with all the intricacies of this question. That treaty was
made by ene Government, and signed by Lord Maleresibury,
the Foreign Secretary of another. The provolone of that
treaty trampled on the rights of an endear peel le, and also
on the rights of an hereditary duke, and e. the pretext of
supporting the integrity of Denmark and maintaining the
balance of power in Europe, for which this country has paid
so much and profited so little. This treaty has settled no
point, it has satisfied no party; while Germany denies the
legality of the treaty, and Denmark evades all the stipula-
tions of the treaty of 1852. England is the only power
which, on a strict examination of those blue books, will be
found pertinaciously adhering to, and ready to go to war
for, the maintenance of that treaty by which the people of
the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein are compelled to accept
the supremacy of the Danish monarchy, which had no heart
or feeling for these duchies. (Hear, hear.) I have no hesi-
tion in saying that, in the making of that treaty, the noble
lord unfortunately became a tool in the hands of Russia to
advance the ambitious designs of the Emperor of that coun-
try. So far back as the year 1448, Christian I. of Oldenburg
succeeded to the crown of Denmark, and in ]460 he was
elected to the sovereignty of the two duchies of Schleawie-
Holstein, and there was an old charter that the two duchies
should remain for ever undivided. However much people may
dispute the title, I think those who study the question will
agree that the relations between Denmark and the duchies
were of a purely dynastic and personal kind, the same as the
relations between this country and Hanover. It is neces-
sary to remember that the local Governments of Holstein
and Schleswig were entirely apart from Denmark ; and since
1605 the succession to the crown of Denmark was by females,
but in the duchies the succession was strictly restricted to
males, It is not necessary for my subject to go further
than that. In the year 1846 Christian VIII., being afraid
of the extinction of his dynasty, issued his famous letters
patent, and those letters patent were the cause of all the con-
fusion that has arisen. He recognised explicitly the union
between Holstein and Schleswig. but in 1848 a democratic
revolution broke out in Copenhagen, and a new King,
Frederick VII., threw himself into the arms of the Eider
Danish party, whose object was to let Holstein go, but to
incorporate Schleswig with Denmark. In 1818 the Prus-
sians, after a conflict with the Danes, established a peace
with them; but the duchies still holding out, were routed
by the Danes at the battle of Eisted, on the 25th of July,
1850, and Austria and Prussia then stepping in, in spite of
their promises, proposed to the duchies an ignominious
peace. The Confederation, in the first place, took the fatal
step, in the eyes of the inhabitants of Schlesse;g-Holstein,
and gave up the political union of the dueeilies, which had
been recognised for ages, and had been guaranteed as re-
cently as 1816 by Christian VIII. Denmaik gave up the
incorporation, and gave solemn pledges that she would
never again endeavour to incorporate Schleswig with Den-
mark. She also guaranteed separate legislation to the
internal affairs, of Schleswig and Holstein. These terms
never were submitted to the States of Schleswig and
Holstein. The hon, gentleman having thus given a
brief outline of the political history of the States, turned
attention to the correspondence on the table of the
house. The most material information, said the hon.
gentleman, is that conveyed in a note from the Chevalier
von Bunsen, in May, 1848, in which he shadowed out a
plan for separating north and south Schleswig, giving the
north to Denmark and the south to Holstein. The noble
lord, then Foreign Secretary, now First Minister, amplified
the suggestions of Chevalier von Bunsen, and made a pro-
posal that a line should be drawn across Schleswig, and
gave the northern part to Denmark and the south to Hol-
stein. That was the proposal of the noble lord, and I find
it impossible to reconcile that conduct with his conduct in
1861. After some further interference, on March 20, 1851,
a great stir had been made on the ground that we were in-
terfering in the question of the duchies. A member got up
and asked the noble lord whether there had been any nego-
tations on that question. Let the house bear in mind that in
1850 he had suggested this scheme, and had proposed sue-
cessors to the crown of Denmark, and then hear the answer
to that question. The noble lord stated that a good deal
had passed in regard to these points; and her Majesty's
Government had studiously and systematically held them-
selves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations.
Her Majesty's Government had confined themselves strictly
to negotiations for bringing about peace between Schleswig
and the Germanic Confederation. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment were still interesting themselves for the same object.
The 'non. gentleman then declared that the treaty of 1852
really originated at Warsaw, and was promoted by the Em-
peror of Russia, between whom and the succession to the
duchies and the crown of Denmark there were at the pre-
sent time only three lives. The hon. member pointed out
further that Earl Granville, seeing the injustice with
which this question was treated in 1852, wrote to Sir 11.
Wynn, the Ambassador at Copenhagen, representing that
the Germanic Confederation were necessary parties to the
question before it was finally settled ; bat who, on receiv-
ing a reply from Sir H. Wynn that his proposal had
thrown the whole court into confusion, wrote again to say
that the Danish Minister had given a false interpreta-
tion to the despatch of her Majesty's Government,
which did not require that either the Diet or the Duke of
Augustenturg should be made parties to the proposed
arrangement for the successi at to the Crown of Denmark.
The consequence of all that was that the treaty of 1852 has
never beet recognised by the Diet, and to this day it is con-
sidered by the Germanic Confederation to be in Effect a
nullity. This question of Schleswig-Holstein has never
been discussed, and is totally misunderstood, both in this
house and in the country. The opinion of German states-
men on this treaty was to bo found from the memoir of the
Gaunt von Usedom, on the 4th of Febt nary, 1862, in which
he said that " in attempting to break the legitimate succes-
sion in the duchies violently and without free renunciation
on the part of those concerned, the dangerous principle of
arbitrary power is installed in the place of existing rights.
The seeds of future insurrection will be shown in favour of
legitimacy. I pray Sour Majesty may, at any risk, keep
free from establishing a principle of integrity nor in exist-
ence, but intended to be artificially created." The other
day, the son of the celebrated Chevalier, on December 3,
1863, said—" King Frederick 'William IV. long resisted
the urgent pressure of Russia, and influence in the pay of
Russia, urging.him to sign the treaty of 1862. I well re..
member my father's observations on that treaty. The first
cannon shot in Europe, he said, will annihilate this most
fumbling piece of diplomacy. (Hear, hear.) Have we not
seen how this prophecy, made in 1852, has been tarried out,
and how this most fumbling piece of diplomacy has been rent
asunder by the first cannon shot in Denmark, I maintain,
and I think I shall be rupported by these who form the
Liberal party in this country, that the King of Denmark
had no right to alter the succession to his own Crown,
and no right to call in the Powers of Europe to set aside
the legitimate heir of the duchies ; and the noble lord had
no right to call this a legal and proper mode of proceeding
as he does in this despatch. The engagements of 1851-52
were solely between Austria, Prussia, and Denmark, and
it is very material that the house should be in possession of
whet those engagement wore. Denmark undertook that a
common constitution should be provided for the whole mo-
narchy, that certain local rights should be guaranteed to
the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, and that neither of
them should be incorporated with Denmark. To this day,
those engagements have never been complied with, (Hear.)
Denmark has systematically evaded complying with those
agreements, However wo may sympathise with a small
State fighting a gallant battle against great odds, wo are at
the same time bound to consider the justice of the case, and
not to forget that the small State has availed herself of her
weakness, and systematically evaded complying with the
agreements which she undertook to fulfil. What has been
her conduct in the duchies ? It has been marked by the
most arbitrary and tyrannic pleas. She has suppressed the
German language. It is made penal for two or more house-
holds to club together and entertain a German instreelor
for their families, Only three people are allow.e to sign a
petition. In fact, she has in every way acted with the most
arbitrary power to the German popuhelon of those duchies.
merely upon German re-
(Rear, hear,) This does not ie..
presentations. To prove sets, the hon, gentleman quoted
from the despatches and reports of Mr. Ward, Vice-consul
Reynaud, and Mr. Grosvenor, to show that the liberty of
the press was entirely suppressed in the duchies ; that the
officials were exclusively Danes ; that the systematic attempts
were made to force the Danish language on the German
inhabitants ; and that the espionage of the police and gene
d'armes was exceedingly irritating to the German popu-
lation. The first step of King Christian IX. on coming
to the throne, contrary to the express stipulations which
he had given twelve years before, was to proclaim the in•
corporation of Schleswig with the kingdom of Denmark.
(Hear, hear.) King Christian 1 X.'s title to the throne of
Denmark may be a good one, though the Danish Parlia-
ment had to be dissolved three times before they could
be brought to acknowledge it; but by what possible title is
the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein ? By no title whatever,
for to this day the change has never been submitted to the
Estates of the Duchies. The people claim their rightful
sovereign, and deny altogether that Christian 11. is Duke
of Schleswig-Holstein. I will not go into the case of the
rival claimant to them, the Duke of Angustenburg, who
has received somewhat hard measures at the hands of the
great Powers. I do not undertake to say that he is the
rightful heir, though many people in Germany think so,
and the greater port ion of the people in the duchies think
he is the heir. It is not necessary to my argument. I only
maintain that King Christian IX. is not the rightful Duke
of the Estates of Schleswig-Holstein. Whatever may come
of the vexed question of the succession, I do not think that
an English House of Commons will fix its seal to an endea-
vour to force an unwelcome prince upon an unwilling people
without consulting their Estates. This is not a course which
I think a Liberal Government or that greater sham a Liberal
party, ought to consider. (Hear.) I regret that the settle-
ment proposed by Earl Russell on Sept. 24, 1862, was not
accepted by Denmark, because I think if it had been this
war would have been prevented. The Germans were willing
to adopt that settlement of the question, but Denmarkovith
her usual obstinacy, trading upon her weakness, held out,
and would not listen to the settlement of the question. Re-
ferring then to the despatches written by Earl Russell, the
hon. gentleman said—l only regret that he has been so in-
cessant in writing despatches, because, by our incessant
meddling interference somehow or other this country has
lost her hold in Europe, and we in fact are looked upon by
the minor Power. of Germany as a troublesome meddler,