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

should be a Budget—a general ordinary Budget—voted for
ten years. The assemblies being brought toget her 'Mader agree-
ment, and the Germans being satisfied) the probaben y is that
this Budget would be voted for ten years without or position.
Unfortunately, i, is entirely is the competeno f members
to say whether they will adapt such a plan r reject it. If
they thought it imported any danger to the 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 aro 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 interfereuce," 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 tlaet.the Danish Go-
vernment should keep them. That is the utmost extent to
which I go, although there are things which may be said
with regard to the German subjects of the King of Den-
mark. For instance, if there be a village in which the
people complain that they have no church in a hich they can
listen to services in their own language, and no school in
which their children can be taught their own German lan-
guage, it is only fair that:the houQeholders 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 petition, 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
7German 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, hether Denmark
has done so or not, and, if she has done so, how far those
arrangements can be modified, and in what 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 aot by which the German States
are bound together, and to commit an act of international
violence the like of which I have never heard. That is what
the noble earl invites us to do. He invites us to interfere
in this question betwee; Germany and Denmark by force of
arms, and to go to warkr 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
thin. 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 1846. I know that
he does not took 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, signed."] 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 tiareaties 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 how entirely 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 anxiety 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 c incurrence in the propositions
he was making. Russia, with 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 Confederati n ; and,
on the other hand, that the King of Denmark is bound,
not with the solemn obligations of a treaty, but is bound in
honour and required by a sense of justice and of policy, to
carry into effect those engagements into which he entered
in 1851-2 Keith regard to other portions of his dominions.
(Hear, 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 that is a dis •
tinction 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
of the infringement of which they now complain, it would
be the duty of this country not to permit such execution,
although in vindication of their own Federal Diet, but
by the extreme measure of war, if necessary, that we
should impose a prohibition. I did not understand him to
hold that language. (Hear, hear.) What my noble friend
did say was that if, in consequence of the difficulties now
arising, Russia and France are agreed with us as to the
course required by right and justice, we_ought not to per-
raafogirat—itrinetoottphthpereeospeFiintel,ndoenorfaolt Diet, for they have nothing to do
with it, but Austria and Prussia, against law and right, and
and my nobleetnhfimejeortdhk,er threePowers,vio interposeltaotion
of
its
rectly that such a state of things this country and
th.oinrk rights ;
Bard with indifference. (Cheers,) I willt
various phases which this question arguedrzotc o
gu
oql
dui
into
nottteo c
torher
e:
it
tas passed through, or
the various negotiations to which
since the year 1851 ? Why,
have been the real difficulties in the has led. But what
the
teeiwnayof any settlement
difficulty has been
the obstinate refusal of Holstein, backed up by a
secret un-
derstanding with the German Powers,
to consent t 4)
any
practicable arrangement. (Hear, hear.) Conciliatory p.,
positions
positions have been made by Denmark, and these have
been discussed or entertained by Holstein, but have been met
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
The first proposal was that there should be a Constitu-
tion common to both countries, a common representationand