The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-16 00:00:00

should be a Budget—a general ordinary Budget—voted for
IMPEILIAL PARLT A VENT tenyears, The assemblies being brought together under agree-
ment, and the Germans being satisfied, the probab yis that
this Budget would be voted for ten years without or position,
b Unfortunately, i, is entirely in the-chmpetencs if members
to say whether they will adapt such a plan r reject it. If
they thought it imported any danger to th 3 independence of
Denmark they would do quite right to reject it ; but, at the
same time, they must consider that Germany is entirely
united upon the subject. In the Prussian, in the Austrian,
in the Saxon, and in other popular assemblies there is
but one voice—that the German subjects of the King of
Denmark are oppressed, that they are suffering the deprive-
sion of privileges which they ought to have, and that it is a
disgrace to Germany that they should be so treated. lam
not of opinion that it is wise for any country to give to any
other country power to interfere in its internal con-
cerns. But with that question I have nothing to do. It was
quite competent for the King of Denmark to say in
1850, " I will have no interference, ' but he did not do so;
and what I say, and what I venture to think, is that, hav-
ing made engagements, it is only just that the Danish Go-
vernment should keep them. That is the utmost extent to
which I go, although there are things which,
said
rclieCr with regard to the German subjects of the King of eeDen-
mark. For instance, if there be a village in which the
people complain that they have no church in NI hich they can
listen to services in their own language, and no school in
which their children can be taueht their own German lan-
guage, it is only fair that:the householders who think that a
grievance should be able to send a petition to the Sovereign,
and ask that the grievance should be redressed. But, accord-
ing to the laws which prevail; not more than three persons
can venture to sign a petitiOse, and it is impossible, there-
fore, for a larger number to ask the sovereign for redress.
The German subjects also complain that, while the press is
free in Denmark, the Government dare not allow them to
read German papers. 'With regard to these subjects it
has always appeared to me the interest of the King of
Denmark and the Danish Government that Germans and
Danes should be treated alike, that both should have the
same rights and privileges, and that both should be covered
by the protection of equal laws. That is the utmost claim
which the Germans have a right to make, but I know that
they have asked for a great deal more. Then comes that
difficult question whether, Germany finding the rights of
German subjects in Holstein are not regarded by the
Danish Government, the German Confederation have a
right to proceed to execution. A more serious question can
hardly be raised. With regard to Schleswig it is an inter-
national question. Austrian Prussia, and the German Diet
say that Demark has made certain treaties and diplomatic
arrangements with regard to Schleswig, Whether Denmark
has done so or not, and, if she has done so, how far those
arrangements can be modified, and in wha. manner, so as
to preserve the peace of Europe, is an international ques-
tion upon which the influence of the cabinets of France,
France, Prussia, and Sweden may be usefully exerted. But
for England to declare that she will not permit an act of
execution in Holstein by the German Confederation is to
set at defiance the solemn act by which the German States
are bound together, and to commit an act of international
violtence the like of which I have never heard. That ie what
the noble earl invites us to do. He invites us to interfere
in this question between Germany and Denmark by force of
arms, and to go to war for the purpose of preventing Ger-
many carrying into effect laws which every State of Ger-
many declares to be the undoubted right of the Confedera-
tion to enforce. There are two things, as I have already
said, which must be admitted. With regard to the laws of
the German Confederation the German Confederation itself
is the true judge, and with regard to the engagements be-
tween Germany and Denmark, whatever they may be,
the King of Denmark is bound in honour to observe them.
It appears that those two maxims ought to be our guide, and
that we ought not to profess to interfere with the laws
of the German Confederation with regard to execu
tion. I was sorry to hear the noble earl give some
countenance to the notion which prevails in some of the
States of Germany, happily not the most important, that
the engagements, protocols, and treaties of 1850, 1851, and
1852 should be set aside, and the treaty of succession to the
crown of Denmark should be held invalid, and that we
should revert to the state of things in 1346. I know that
he does not look at the subject in that view. He only looks
at it with the view of getting rid of the treaty of 1852, made
under the Administration of the noble earl who I see oppo-
site. [The Earl of Derby.—" Not made, signal I be-
lieve it was prepared and arranged by my noble friend Lord
Palmerston when he was Foreign Secretary, and signed
under the Administration of the noble earl. The noble
earl who first spoke wishes to get rid of that treaty with a
view of making a better position for Denmark. But Olden-
burg and other States wish to get rid of the treaty with
the view of making a better position for Germany. I
am for maintaining that treaty and not destroying it,
either for the benefit of Germany or Denmark. (Hear.)
I am sure the best position for any English Government to
hold is to maintain and adhere to treaties which have been
made—not advancing upon this dangerous and question-
able path of denying to Germany rights which fairly belong
to her, but endeavouring in any difficulties which may arise
rather to look to peace and conciliation than to the extreme
issue of war. (Cheers.)
The Earl of DERBY--Before I make any observations—
and they shall not be many—on what has just fallen from
the noble lord, I think it only due to him that I should take
the earliest opportunity of withdrawing the imputation
which it may be thought I had thrown out when, on the
first day of the session, I imputed to him that he
had gratuitously and without sufficient cause interfered for
the purpose of settling the question of Schleswig-Hcl
stein. I had at that time no means of information beyond
those furnished by the public papers ; and I certainly was
not aware of the length and elaboration of the diplomatic
correspondence which had taken place, nor howentirely the
noble earl's interference was justified by the consent which
the different Powers had given. (Cheers.) But having
said that, I must confess I listened with some avxiety to
the answer which the noble lord would make to the tempe-
rate, clear, and judicious statement of my noble friend, and
I cannot but concur with him in thinking that the noble
lord's original conception of the duty of this country, of
what was required by policy as well as by justice towards
the two parties were much more accurate than those which,
apparently under the pressure of circumstances, he adopted
at a later period. (Cheers.) I concur with my noble
friend in thinking that the propositions offered by the
noble lord in 1861 were such as either party, without sacri-
fice of honour, principle, or policy, might very well have
adopted; and, with the exception of Russia's opinion as to
the guarantee, he had full concurrence in the propositions
he was making. Russia, v ith the exception of France, had
the least direct and personal interest in the solution of the
question. The noble earl says we had not the sanction of
France. Now, lam not aware that there is anything in the
papers laid before Parliament to indicate in the slightest de-
gree any other objection on the part of France than that same
objection taken by Russia to the particular item of the gua-
rantee. (Hear) Let me say at once that there is one point
on which I entirely agree with the noble earl—namely, that
we have no right to interfere with the exercise within its own
bounds of the power of the German Confederation; and,
on the other hand, that the King of Denmark is bound,
not with the solemn obligations of a treaty, but is bound ire
honour and required by a sense of justice and of policy, to
carry into effect those engagements into which he entered
in 1851-2 with regard to other portions of his dominions.
(Htar, hear.), Whether it was politic or not to admit the
interference of any foreign country—the interference of the
Germanic Federation with regard to that portion of his do-
minions held by him as a member of that Federation, I do
not pretend to discuss. It may have been impolitic; but the
promise having been given, I do say that Denmark was
bound in honour strictly and fairly to fulfil that promise.
(Hear, hear.) It is a matter to be considered hereafter what
charges of failure to carry out this promise, what charges
of want of intention to do so, the noble earl can bring against
Denmark. (Cheers.) lam greatly mistaken if there does
not exist a distinction which the noble earl has
failed to draw with regard to these engagements. In the
case of Holstein, where the King of Denmark exercises his
rights subject to a certain supervision and jurisdiction on
the part of the Federal Diet, the Diet has a right to inter-
pose, and, if its rights be interfered with, to carry out what
is called Federal execution. But if I rightly understood the.
noble earl, the engagements which he referred to were en-
gagements, not entered into with the Federal Diet, but en-
gagements made severally with Austria and Prussia.
(Cheers.) The German Federal Diet was no party to
these engagements, and consequently has no right to
enforce them. (Hear, hear.) lam not asserting that
Austria and Prussia would not have such a right; I speak
at present merely of the Federal Diet, But thehita dig
Unction which is not immaterial when we come to consider
a portion of my noble friend's speech which has been greatly
misrepresented—of course, through being misunderstood—
by the noble earl opposite. The noble earl represented my
noble friend as having said that, if the Federal Diet at-
tempted to carry into execution any portion of those rights
xe uton,
be the duty of this country not p permit such
in, it would
that we
by the extreme measure tit. war, if necessary,
although in vindication of /heir own FederaleDicet,ibut
should impose a prohibition.
hold that language. (Hear, hear.) What my noble friend
. required bydifficulties now
did. say was that if, in consequence of the
I did not understand him to
arising' Russia and France are agreed with us as to the
per-
mit—not the Federal D.
against the opinion of Prnssia'
right and justice, we ought not to per-
with it, but Austria and Diet, for they have nothing to do
rights; and my noble fr• against law and right, and
the other three Powers, to interpose
for the oppression of Denmark and for the violation of its
that such a state of things I think, argued quite cor-
rectlyis country could not re-
_ I will not go into the
various phases which this gard with indifference.
the various negotiations to which
hasihtasrstssed through, or
have been the real difficulties in the way
fled. But what
since the year 1851 ? Why, the main any settlement
difficulty has been
'-obstinate refusal of
Holstein, backed up by a secret
(astanding with the German Powers, to consent to any arrangement. (Hear, hear.) Conciliatory pro..
positions positions have been made by Denmark, and these have not
been discussed or entertained by Holstein, but have been met
ciCuheegsetsrisot.nh)
with a fixed determination doggedly to lay down principles
from which it would not depart, and adherence to which ren-
dered any agreement between the parties absolutely impos-
sible. The first proposal was that there should be a Constitu-
'on common to both countries, a common representationand ,

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Last Evening.

The Li.tnn CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack al
the u5....18.1 hour.
THE VIADUCT OVER. LUDGATE-HILL.

The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from the
Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's against the proposed rail-
way viaduct over Ludgate-hill.
Lord CHELMSFORD also presented petitions to the
same effect. He regretted the petitioners had not considered
this subject before the bill authorizing the construction of
the viaduct had come before the house. The only question
that now remained was, whether the powers given by the
bill could be stayed.
Lord HARRIS said he considered the railway would be
a great public convenience, and as nearly four millions of
money had been spent in bringing it to the Surrey si le of
the water, it would be a very serious matter to alter the
provisions of the measure.
After a few words from Lord WODEHOUSE,
Lord REDESDALE said. tlih't; although the London,
Chatham, and Dyer Railway tad powers to make
the viaduct, they did not intend to continue the line beyond
Earl-street, Blackfriars, at present from want of capital,
and they had now a bill beta& naiad:tent for the purpose
of raising capital, and for further inwiers. It was of course
a very important question as to what the house coal do
with regard to the powers already granted. It ought not to
be disposad of in a conversation at a moment's notice. It
would be advisable that the committee on the bill should
know the opinion of the house upon the point.
The subject then droppel.
DIXIIY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL.
On the motion if the Duke of NEWCASTLE, this bill
was read a second time, and it was agreed to take the dis-
cussion on going into committee on Friday, June 5.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Bristol and Exeter Railway Bill was read a second

time.

The Hammersmith and City Railway, Inverness and
Perth Junction, and Morayshire Railway bills were read a
third time and passed.
DENMARK.

The Earl of ELLENBORO UGH rose to ask whether
the Government were prepared to produce any further
correspondence upon the questions of Holstein and Schles-
wig, and especially whether they could communicate any
representatims,alicbt may have been made to the Da4ish
Government by ttose of Austria and Prussia reltailysl to
the proclamation of the King of Denmark, dated MarCla 31,
1863. The noble earl said it was now two years since he
bad brought the subject under the consideration of
their lordships' house, and the question yet remained in
anything but a satisfactory state. He thought it was the
duty of their lordships to look ahead, in order that they
might be in a position to meet the difficulty ; and that being
their duty he was extremely anxious to have as much in-
formation as the Government. could give him. During these
two years the Governments had been in negotiation, yet
the result of all was, that no approximation of parties had
been produced, but increased differences between the parties
had arisen. He would place a few facts before their lord-
ships as to the present position this country held with re-
gard to Denmark. Denmark was divided into four parts,
namely, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Duchy of Holstein,
the Duehy of Schleswig, and the Duchy of Lemberg.
Within one month after the breaking out of the revolution
in 1848 an insurrection broke out in the Duchy of
Schleswig. The insurrection broke out on the 24th March,
and on the 16th April, in direct contravention of the law of
the German Confederation of 1853, the Prussian Diet de-
clared that unless Schleswig were evacuated, t Danes were
to be driven out of it by force. The motiVe 'As ;imply an
ambitious desire of power, and that araltion was clearly
exemplified by the longing to possess a navy, though it was
well known that Germany had no superfluity of means for
anything of that kind. The noble earl, after criticising the
subsequent acts of the Prussian Diet at some length, pro-
ceeded to criticise the change of opinion on the part of Earl
Russell with regard to the admission of the representatives
of Schleswig to the Danish Reichsrath (or Parliament).
The authorities clearly showed that their admission was
simply an act of concession on the part of the Danes.
The Danish people, however, .viewed with astonishment
the proposed separation of Holstein, which would then
stand in the same relation to Denmark as Luxemberg
did to Holland, and greatly reduce the strength of the
kingdom. The noble-earl also condemned the idea of
forming a budget by votes from the four different assem-
blies of Denmark, Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenberg. He
hoped to see a better state of things shortly, and that her
Majesty's Government, in conjunction with France, would
at once declare that Denmark, having been once brought
within European diplomacy, should remain, and that no
act of innovation would be permitted. If that were properly
understood by Prussia, there wou'd be no more difficulty in
the matter, A conference upon that question had been
spoken of, and he only hatted that if the noble earl (Earl
Russell) should attend it, .he would appear in a more con-
genial character than he had of late assumed ; in other
words, that he would stand up to defend the weak against
the strong, and assist Denmark to triumph over the
machinations of those who for 15 years past had been con-
spiring against her integrity and independence.
Earl RUSSELL—Before I answer the questions of the
noble earl I must offer a few observations on the very sin-
gular speech which he has delivered, and the extraordinary
dectrine which he has laid down for the guidance of her
Majesty's Government. The noble earl has treated of the
questions at issue between Denmark and Germany. With
regard to many parts of his speech—as to the proceedings
which took place in the years 1807 and 1813—it is quite un-
necessary for me to make any remarks. But with regard to
what has occurred of late years between Germany and Den-
mark, as I have taken a part in some of those transactions,
I may offer explanations which may correct some of the
statements of the noble earl. So long as I have looked at this
question it appears to me that both Germany and Denmark—
both the Germans and the Danes—having the recollection
of former collisions and of the employment of force, have both
fallen into el rors of conduct, and have made demands which in
the one case ought not to be persisted in, and which in the
other refer to acts which ought to have been performed. It
has always appeared to me that the Diet of Germany and
the Governments of Austria and Prussia— and more espe-
cially Prussia—in asking for a common Constitution for
Denmark, and in requiring that that Constitution should
have certain conditions involved in it—did ask for an inter-
ference in Danish concerns which it would have been dan-
gerous for Denmark to allow. But, on the other hand, lam
of opinion that Denmark hes made certain promises and en-
tered into certain engagements, and that the King and the
Government of Denmark are bound to fulfil those promises
and comply with those engagements. Therefore, while I
thought that Germany was quite wrong in her demands, I
thought Denmark was likewise wrong in not fulfilling the
promises she had made. Well, the noble earl, to my surprise,
states a doctrine which I have seldom heard from a member
of either house of Parliament. The noble lord says that
there were diplomatic engagements taken by Denmark, these
engagements being that Schleswig was not to be incorporated
with Denmark, and that the. German subjects of the Sove-
reign of Denmark should have the, enjoyment of the same
rights as the Danish subjects of the same Crown. The noble
earl says he disapproves those diplomatic arrangements,
altnough they were solemnly agreed to, and ,although the
Emperor of Austria now truly says that the Austrian troops
were withdrawn from Holstein and other Danish territory
on the ground of these engagements. Yet the noble earl
asserts that these engagements ought not to be fulfilled.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that rules which
might be applied to individuals were of very doubtful appli-
cation in diplomatic arrangements.

Earl RUSSELL—The noble earl certainly said he trusted
that if any new arrangements were made these diplomatic.
arrangements would be altered. Now it appears to me, look-
ing at this question in a simple manner, and with the lights
which ordinary men bring to its consideration, that those
arrangements ought to be observed. The noble earl. may
take a higher and more sublime view of this matter ; but
those being the engagements taken lay Denmark, I thought
that the King of Denmark was bound in honour to fulfil
them. With regard to any advice which I had to give, it
could only be, under the circumstances I have described, of
thera nature of a compromise. It is clear that the engage-
eatawith regard to the Constitution are of so extremely
pl a i ocomplicated a nature that both parties have much to come
of
makilie.teinst each other. I have looked to the possibility
says, enesaZetruractical arrangement. The noble earl
should send rep Yilthat in 1861 I proposed that Schleswig
did not propose,
..11,tives to tht.Diat at Copenhagen. I
should be left pee7"qa, thateeivaDiet of Schleswig
us% h
that the King of Denen„k I!" a. st
ii but I maintained
bly without the consent of iliiatn° `ate,o alter the Assem-
serably itself. That pro-
pose' met the reception which the noble earl has mentioned.
not of • France. My
It met with the assent of Russia,
belief is that the French Government,
found that
hte.tGerraan States,
neither Austria nor Prussia, nor any of ring
thou
would agree to the arrangement,
sue it any further. There being, theng, useless Pttr-
on the part of the non-German Powers, anda little agreement
agreement on the part of the German Powers,othgirttealt a dia.
no chance of succesee Our plan of an arrangement' ofan IhBad
I proposed as a plan which I thought then, and think stil6l2,
would maintain the integrity and independence of Denmark
and would have reconciled Denmark to Germany. That it
would have reconciled Denmark to Germany I have no doubt,
because, although it would not have given all that Germany
asked, yet Austria and Prussia, and many other Powers
with which I cmferred, were willing to consent to that ar-
rangement. 'With regard to the altered proposal, it did not
seem to me that it contained any provision that would have
trenched on the independence of Denmark. With regard
to Holstein and Lauenburg, the Danish Government admit
that they formed trt of the German Confederation, and
that being so they have a right to separate Diets. There,
then, only remains the question of Schleswig. What I prro-
posed was 'that Schleswig should be united to Howie)
which the people of Schleswig had repeatedly asked, and
which has also been demanded by a part of Germany ; that
there should be an entirely separate Diet; and that the le-
gislation and votes of money should be kept separate. It has
been said that, seeing how difficult it often is to get votes of
supply from one house, it must be much snore difficult to
_t_et them from four houses. But the noble earl emits, as the
11%414 statomenta omit, that which, I proposed—that there