The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-15 00:00:00

r. r

„,......:.4'....ii,....7..,„ .
...
• -
. -.'• 4,ZY-4::,...t.:1, ~....-... 1,014,' ,
•
••=7
~.. :,,,.. .
_ ... ,
,- ?' 4t..-oc. Mt'1:...1 43 ,1;4'• , vs, ~.,',
z.,3 ~
~,..: -t, .
~,,t.,- .
... ,k,v&„.._, % --,,,—,--,-^1—...3;.,,,- 1,,,, ~... -- 72,1 „,,,,
... 1:7-... • - .
.., , , I fy ,
~,.
... Z, ~ .
-,q, , I,k
1,
. h. .'4 . 4 . 'I
‘:
.
•' I +l,. 't''' 4- a
tla •fr- 11106.,(4x,
.., . ...” „,-,. ''..: '...tyj --V:-.- 41 4 k
'5% .'•-• ,4.. v. , '
~
• • -4 ,',
414161 ii - .. . .r. .ie , ~, ,:, _. 0 .. i , , t.:
~
„etc
,y,
~ ~,",,, ..: , , *. 11; Et , &Iq,, . 01.11,1 L ,s ~. -40-1 fk ....,..- .., A.
air ,„. .._
--,•,,,.., „.. '-4,0A.., -, D . ~ 4,.... a: ii, ,_ „:„.-...,,, #D(lrr• iiNtg,;:e....-
. ,--.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JANUARY 15, 1864.

7THEItE CAN WE MEE 21.11"fli It THE
PANTO3III4IES ? My dear Fellow, Gentlemen sup
at E VANS', Covent-garden.

THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION,

remarks, and after you have made yourself acquainted with
the reply of Freiherr von Beust, will place me in a condi-
tion to report to my Government that you cannot but re-
cognise that the conduct of the Saxon Government has
been entirely in accordance with honourable intentions.—
Accept, &c., (Signed) VITZTHUM.

The fel:owing diplomatic correspondence has
taken place between the British and Saxon Govern-
ments in reference to the Schleswig-Holstein

tion
Rae], RUSSELL TO C. A, MURRAY, ESQ.
Foreign Office, 1/.c. 17.
Sir,—Tier Majesty's Government have heard with sur-
prise and pain the language which has been held in reference
to the London Protocol of May, 1852.
The Powers which signed that treaty, or eventually be-
came parties to it, must recollect that it was made binding
not only on Denmark, but also on Great Britain, France,
Russia, and Sweden, who were parties to the treaty, and on
all other States and Powers giving their consent or adhesion
thereto, and that it was the expressed object and aim of that
treaty, not to rogulate the mutual relations between Den-
mark and Germany, but to serve as an essential agreement
in the general interest of Europe.
A violation of the engagement entered into by Denmark
towards Germany, in the years 1851 and 1852, is an offence
the reparation of which may be justly demanded. Such a
violation, however, cannot result in rendering a solemn
European treaty invalid towards other parties to it The
promises made by Denmark, in 1852, in reference to
Schleswig and Holstein may have been for Austria and
Prussia the prevailing motive for their becoming parties to
the Protocol of May, 1852, but if those powers do not re-
main faithful to their engagements, they cannot with a
shade of justice adduce an excuse that they were deceived
in their expectations relative to the fulfilment by Denmark
of obligations which had been undertaken at a former period
in other documents.
The entire basis of treaty arrangements in Europe would
be overthrawn, if such an excuse for the breach of a clear
and simple treaty could be admitted. Any Sovoreign,when
called upon to fulfil hie:engagement-et might say, "My
reason for withdrawal from such a trea'y was, that I had
made another agreement wiibione of the parties thereto.
This other agreement has been violated; my treaty with
you is, therefore, null and void,"
Her Majesty's Government is convinced that the Court
of Dresden will understand that, if such a lineof agreement
were admitted as valid, every existing treaty would become
waste paper. I refrain from quoting cases in point, in
which such a light and inconsiderate mode of interpreting
treaties would prove seriously prejudicial to the German
powers themselves.
For the present, it may suffice her Majesty's Govern-
ment to declare that they would consider any departure from
the succession Protocol of 1852, on the part of those Powers
who had signed, or become parties to the said treaty, as
wholly incompatible with good faith.—l have, &c.,
(Signed) RUSSELL.
You are requested to leave a copy of this despatch with
Baron von Beust.
BARON VON BEUST TO COUNT VITZIIVII, SAXON MI-
NISTER IN LONDON.
Dresden, Dec. 29.
Count,—Mr. Murray has just communicated to me a
despatch relating to the affairs of the Duchies of Schleswig
Holstein, of which I herewith subjoin a copy.
It will be easy for you to point out that Earl Russell's
despaech undertakes to establish an opinion in reference to
the validity of the London Protocol of May 8, 1852, which
was never entertained by the Royal Government ; and I
presume that her Britannio Majesty's Chief Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs will consider it abortive to enter
iato a discussion on such grounds. The Royal Government
finds itself in presence of a question which has arisen in
consequence of the demise of his Majesty King Frederick
VII. of Denmark, and been brought forward in the Federal
Diet, the organ of the German Confederation. The Am-
bassador of his deceased Majesty at the Diet presented his
credentials to be recognised as the representative of King
Christian IX. in his asserted capacity as Duke of Holstein
and Lauenburg. At the same time the agnate claims of the
Prince cf Augustenburg to the said duchies were submitted
to the Federal Diet by the authorised Bavarian ambas-
sador.
The Royal Government on its part will pursue no other
course than that dictated by justice. Having at the Federal
Diet voted in favour of measures which they considered es-
sential to ensure the complete carrying out of its resolutions
it entered upon the study of the succession question, and
will give its vote in accordance with the result of this exa-
mined ,n.
As Earl Russell has been pleased to call our attention to
the protocol of May 8,1852, it may not be useless to make a
few observations on that subject.
The act in question, which was intended to establish a
new line of succession in Denmark, has been approved and
confirmed by the Danish Reichstag, but in order to make it
valid, and applicable to the German Duchies, it was neces-
sary to obtain the consent of the representative of the agnate
lino of succession, then that of the Sates, and finally that
of the German Federal Diet.
Not one of these conditions has been fulfilled. It is conse •
quently unnecessary for the Diet, in order to dispute the
validity of the treaty of May 8, 1852, relative to the duchies,
to take into consideration its complaints against Denmark
for the violation during many years by that Power of the
obligations she had undertaken towards Germany.
When invited by the Powers signing the London proto •
col to become a party thereto, the Royal Government did
not withhold their consent—not participation—to a combi-
nation which, if Denmark had faithfully fulfilled her en•
gagements towards Germany, might have succeeded; for at
that time there was a prospect of obtaining the consent of
all parties concerned, which was indispensable to render the
treaty effectual. An attempt was not even made to secure
this participation, because it was clear that in face of the
violation by the Danish Government of its obligations, it
was impossible to arrive at such a result. In this manner
the treaty was left incomplete, and inapplicable in an essen-
tial part. The Powers signing the treaty cannot surely,
therefore, reproach the Federal Diet or its members.
The Royal Government, as the British Cabinet will
doubtless recollect, has already on a former occasion dis-
tinctly declared that it was not their intention to anticipate
the resolutions which the Confederation, through the organ
of the Federal Diet, might find it advisable to arrive at. The
case which was foreseen at that time has presented itself
today, and the Royal Government make use of the liberty
which they wisely. reserved.
I venture to hope that this explanation of the true state
of affairs will give Earl Russell a just appreciation of our
conduct, as his well-known sense of right and justice leads
us to expect. It is in fact enough to possess honourable in-
tentions
thought
departing to o
thatthe Royal Government never
You will have the goodness, Count, to read this despatch
roreign Affairs, and leave with
tohim
the
a copyChie f
of Secretaryt
the
same.f

THE NEW PRISON MINISTERS ACT.

At the January General Quarter Session of the Magis-
trates for the county of Middlesex, held at the Clerkenwell
Sessions-house yesterday, under the presidency of Mr. H.
Powell, after some routine business had been despatched,
Mr. E. W. Cox rose, pursuant to notice, to move :
" That the visiting justices of each prison be requested
to inquire and report to the Court on the next county day
the number of Roman Catholic prisoners that have passed
through each prison during the last 12 months, the number
of Roman Catholic prisoners then in each prison, and the
number of Roman Catholic prisoners in each prison who have
been visited by a priest during the preceding three months."
He said that, in making this motion, it was necessary that
he should explain why he brought it forward after the de-
ci ion which had been come to by the last Court. At that
court a motion was submitted to them which rather took
them by surprise. For want of authentic information they
were not prepared to pronounce an opinion on the question
laid before them. He thought it desirable that they should
approach the subject of the Prison Ministers Act with the
facts necessary to a right judgment in their possession, and
therefore he had given notice of a motion for obtaining from
the visiting justices the statistical information reierred to in
his resolution. The Prison Ministers Act contained two
important provisions, the first of which evidently contem-
plated that where there was a large number of prisoners
differing from the Established Church, a minister of their
own faith should be appointed and paid to attend them ;
and the second contemplated the admission of such
a minister to visit them, whether the requested...W-0r not,.
in cases where the number of such prisoners was few, and
where the expense of engaging a chaplain for them might
not be justified. The real question to be considered in their
county, as he took it, would arise under the first of those
two provisions. The main question—viz., whether it was
desirable to appoint a paid minister of any persuasion other
than that of the Established Church—ought, however, to be
deferred until they knew officially what was the precise
number of Roman Catholic prisoners who passed through
the gaols of Middlesex. When the proper time arrived, if the
statistics for which he asked were such as he anticipated
they would be, he would be prepared to state the reasons
why he thought the Court should carry out the provisions
of the Act. Another notice of motion on this subject had
been given by Mr. Turner, the first part of which closely
resembled his own, but it went on to suggest that the visit-
ing justices should also be asked to report their opinion as to
the expediency of appointing a Roman Catholic chaplain in
accordance with the new Act. Now, he objected entirely to
anything like an invitation of an expression of opinion from
disMeurs.siCoonsofbaeimngotihoenrenoctaylleetd
ret!
o
order
s efcotri oann
toife
ipt ha
tei
nCg otuhret .
gularly before them, concluded by moving his resolution for
returns.

Mr. T. TURNER said it might be convenient if he now
moved his resolution by way of amendment, instead of
troubling the court with two discussions on the same sub-
jeer. He was quite ready to adopt Mr. Cox's motion as far
as it went, but he thought they ought to go further. Mr.
Cox was opposed to inviting any enression of opinion from
the visiting justices of their prisons; but it certainly had
been usual, when any measure was suggested affecting the
administration of any particular institution, to invite from
those magistrates, who hail special charge of that institu-
tion, not only a statement of those facts which were impor-
tant for the information of the Co;Ort, but also an expression
of opinion resulting from their own exprience and intimate
knowledge of all the details of the case, Zoreover, even
when the Court had before them the opinion of the commit-
tee, they could throw it aside if they did not approve it;
and certainly it could do no possible harm. His present
motion was in substance the same as he had moved by way
of amendment whan that question was last before the Court.
Some members might not be aware of the different alter-
natives which the Act presented for their consideration.
They wore not limited to the simple course of appointing a
minister of the Roman Catholic persuasion to attend the
prisoners of that Church in their houses of correction and
paying him a salary. It was also competent for them to
leave the visiting justices of each prison to exercise the per-
missive power vested in them by the Act of inviting, or not
refusing, the voluntary services of any Roman Catholic
priest who might offer them, reserving the matter of his
remuneration for future consideration. Now, the Court
refused, on the last county day, specially to appoint a
Roman Catholic chaplain, but they still might adopt the
second alternative he bad just mentioned. He was him.
self rather in favour of that course, much as bit by bit re-
form had been derided. IVithout, therefore, interfering
with their previous decision the Court might accede to his
motion, unless, indeed, they were perfectly satisfied with
the working of the present system, and thought nothing at
all should be done under the new Act. the Court would,
he believed, be slow entirely to disregard on that subject a
decision of the Leislature concurred in by the leading men
of all parties. But, not to rest his case on the deference
due to the Legislature, reasonable as he thought that
deference, let him Remind them of one or two facts as
to the state of Coldbath-fields Prison, with which, as
chairman of the visiting justices, he was personally
acquainted. There were upwards of 1,800 prisoners there
at their last Friday's meeting, and of that number 380
were Roman Catholics. How many of those 380 would the
Court suppose had been visited by a minister of their own
persuasion during the preceding week ? Why, only eight I
and small as that number was, he believed it was twice the
ordinary weekly average. There were not more, he believed,
than four Roman Catholic prisoners per week who made a
special request to see a minister of their own Church. Was
that a satisfactory state of things ? What became of the
remaining 372 ? Did they, through the magical effect of
their incarceration, immediately become good members of
the Church of England, and, by attending the prison
chapel, renounce their connexion with their own creed?
Nobody could conclude anything of the kind. The great
mass of them passed through their prison life without any
religious exercises whatever. Roman Catholic prisoners
were now allowed to be visited by their priests, provided
they specially requested it, but not otherwise. On what
grounds was that permitted? Not on the ground of fa-
vour due to good conduct, because, be the prisoner's con-
duct bad or good, his request was equally granted or
equally refused. The ground was either that they would
not deny him a right—the right of having religions
ministration in conformity with his own faith—or else
that they allowed it for purposes of reformation. If they
granted it becmse nobody confined in a prison should be
subjected to a religious disability from which he was exempt
outside its walls, it surely ought to be extended to those
who did not make a special request equally with those who
did. Moreover, if it was granted for purposes of reforma-
tion to those who made a special request, clearly those
who made no such request required that reformatory in-
fluence most of all. (Hear.) On principle, then, the pre-
sent system cou'd not be defended, and nobody acquainted
with the state of crime in the country could regard its
practical working as any more satisfactory. He trusted,
therefore, that the Court would adopt his amendment, viz. :
" That it be referred to the Committee of the Visiting
Justices of the three county prisons to inquire and report
to the Court what numbers of Roman Catholic prisoners
have been committed to each prison (stating separately the
numbers of adults and juveniles of each sex), during each
of the three years ending respectively, Michaelmas, 1861,
Michaelmas, 1862, and Michaelmas, 1863, and also what are
the present numbers of such prisoners within the same pri-
sons respectively. And that such committee do report
further whether, having regard to the numbers of the Roman
Catholic prisoners within the aforesaid prisons respectively,
and to the circumstances of each prison, it is in their opinion
advisable that a minister of the Roman Catholic Church
should be appointed by the Court, under the provisions of
the ' Prison Ministers Act, 1863,' to attend on the prisoners
belonging to that Church, at each or either of the prisons;
or whether it appears to them preferable for the Court to
leave it to the visiting justices of each prison to act, if they
think fit, upon the authority vested in them by the said act
(in the event of no such nominationas aforesaid being made)
to permit the visits of a Roman Catholic minister to pri-
soners belonging to that Church, without any special re.
quest for such visits on the part of the prisoners, themselves;
or whether, lastly, they are of opinion that it will be fit and
proper to leave the ministrations to Roman Catholic pri-
soners, in each or ()idler of such prisons, on their present
footing. And that such committee be requested, in the
event of their recommending the nomination by the Court
of ministers of the Roman Catholic Church to each or either
of the said prisons, to state whether any and what annual
or other sums ought, in their opinion, to be awarded to
such ministers respectively in remuneration for their ser-
vices. And that the committee be requested to state to the
Court the grounds upon which their recommendations or
opinions upon the abevo points respectively shall have been
founded."

-
(Signed) ileum
The foregoing was sent to Earl Russell by Count
Vitzthum, accompanied by the following memo-
randum :--

COUNT VITZTIII73.I TO EARL RUSSELL.
Hobart-place, Jan. 4.
I wro
this morning to request the
honour
offt atoll
interview, your lor lordship t
as you will scarcely be able to
see me to-morrow before the Cabinet Council, at which I
hear the Holstein question will be discussed, I take the
liberty of sending you the subjoined copy of a despatch which
reached me this morning, It is the reply of Baron von
Beust to your lordship's despatch of the 17th December.
As you will doubtless remember, we have never used the
arguments combated by You in the document referred to,
and have at all times maintained that the rights of the
German Duchies are establiehed on a strong and sure foun-
dation. One principal reason for not voting with the ma-
jority at the sitting of the Diet on the 7th December was
owing, perhaps, to cur having been unable to discover any
formal connection•bet ween the Danish obligations of 1851
and the treaties of 1852, although he did not wish to deny
the existence of a moral connection. We have not said, and
do not say, "The Treaty of 1852 is null and void so long as
Denmark has not fulfilled her engagements of 1851." We
say rather, merely— A treaty has been concluded in which
certain arrangements for the future have been prepared.
But the event for which the said treaty made arrangements
has not occurred. Xing Frederick -VII. is certainly deceased
without issue; he is also deceased without being able to
introduce legally and rightfully
into the German portion of
his possessions the new hereditary
succession which the
signatories to the treaty of 1852 htd in view, and which they
would have been bound to maintain had the above-mentioned
arrangements really thoroughly been carried out. As this
latter is not the case, the treaty of itself has not attained per-
fection on account of the non -accomplishment of three ma-
terial preliminary conditions.
1. The consent of the collective agnafes.
2. The consent of the estates of Schleswig and Holstein.
3. The consent of the German Confederation.

n instance of striking similitude.
I m
Pragmatica Sanction." Karl VI.,
Mailing male issue,
d„ited to alter the existing order of
succession in favour of his daughter. He concluded treaties
Gera then history
so-called affords
‘d‘
with all the principal Powers. Did these treaties satisfy
him ? No. He held it for right and wise to lay the Prag-
ststes and Provincial Assemblies
and they accepted it. The omf aht ii cs Sd ai
ffnecrtei
no nt
tbeerfroirt Sae
rtihe es ,
conse-
quence of this was, that when at a later period foreign
Powers sought to rob Maria Theresa of ocrtain portions of
her inheritance the
people rose to defend the rights of the
Empress.
"Had Frederick VII. acted in the present casewith the
same wislom as Karl VI., and had the people of Schleswig'and Holstein openly declared themselves in favour of
Christian IX., as didte Austrians and Hungarians at that
time for rho Empreg, are you of opinion that Gc?many
would have stepped in and questioned the legality of the
succession which the Ireaty of London sought to arrange ?
I confidently hope your lordship will pardon theso. few

Mr. BARER seconded the amendment.
Lord EBURY thought that, instead of extending to the
wide question opened by the amendment, the disoussion
ought, if possible, to be confined to Mr. Csx's simple Pro•
position—viz., that they should be furnished with fuller in-
formation. Very recently the Court came to a decision ad-
verse to the appointment of a ltoman Catholic minister in
accordance with the act of Parliament; and the avowed
object of Mr. Turner's amendment was to induce them to
reverse that decision. He sincerely hoped that that deci-
-s;wl would be reversed; but the mode of attaining that end
'tuo.'st.eougenial_to the Court would be by now limiting their
aotio,l to a request for further information. The main
question at issue was clearly one of proportion and degree,