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

IY.L.PERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.--Last Evening.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, took his seat on the woolsack at
tt se usual 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 oinstruction 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 WonEnotsE,
Lord REDESDALE said that, although the London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway had 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 before Parliament for the purpose
of raising capital, and for further powers. It was of course
a very important question as to what the house could do
with regard to the powers already granted. It ought not to
be dispos3d of in a conversation at a moment's notice. It
would be advisable that the committ, e on the bill should
know the opinion of the house upon the point.
The subject then dropped.
DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL.
On the motion of 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 ware read a
third time and passed.
DENMARK.

The Earl of ELLENBORO UGH rose to ask whether
the Government were prepared to produce any lurther
correspondence upon the questions of Holstein and Schles-
wig, and especially whether they could communicate any
representations which may have been made to the Danish
Government by those of Austria and Prussia relative to
the proclamation of the King of Denmark, dated March 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 Dnehy of Schleswig, and the Duchy of Lemberg.
Within one month after the breaking out of the re-volution
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 unlessSchleswig were evacuated, the Danes were
to be driven out of it by force. The motive was simply an
ambitious desire of power, and that ambition 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
farming 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 hoped 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
doctrine 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 theyears 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 et 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 has 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 diplomatie arrangements,
although 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 ba 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 ley 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
the nature of a compromise. It is clear that the engage-
'bents with regard to the Constitution are of so extremely
e°n'Plicated a nature that both parties have much to corn-
ofl4 et against each other. I have locked to the possibility
ea y's
ra4King ROM. practical arrangetltnt. The noble earl
' and
ailrB truly, that in 1861 I pioposed that Schleswig
should send representatives to the Diet at Copenhagen. I
did not propose, as he says, that the Diet of Schleswig
should be left perpetually in such a state, but I maintained
that the King of Denmark had no rg • ht to alter the Assem-
bly without the consent of the
Assembly itself. That pro-
posal met the reception which the noble earl has mentioned.
It met with the assent of Russia, but not of France. My
belief is that the French Government, b.aving
found that
neither Austria nor Prnasia, nor atnhyogfhtht
eiterusernelleas:tSotates,
would agree to the arrangement, thought
pur-
sue it any further. There being, then, so little agreeneet
on the part of the non-German Powers, and so great a dis-
agreement on the part of the German Powers, that plan had
no chance of success. Our plan of an arrangement of 1862
I proposed as a plan which I thought then, and think still,
would maintain the integrityrand 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
and many other Powers
with which I conferre
asked, yet Austria andd
, werePrusstling 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 Lauenburge the Danish Government admit
that they formed part 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 pro-
posed was that Schleswig should be united to Holstein,
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
(Yet votes of
been said that, seeing how difficult it often is
supply from one house, it must be much more° ;et
to
get them from four houses. But the noble earl (=ire, as the
-Danish statements omit„ that which I proposed—that there