The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-17 00:00:00

TER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

" Turin, Dec. 29.
"M. le Ministre,—Assailed by the extreme party for
having adopted an expectant policy on the Roman ques-
tion, the new Ministers have left to be explained, through
some journals,the at, itude which they rely upon maintaining,
and which is summed up in these words by the Opinions of
the 21st, ' Between France,which denies Rome to the Italians,
and Italy,which it irrev,,cably desires,there is no understand -
ing possible.' Although this declaration, in supposing that
it was on behalf of the Ministry, did not in any way pledge
it towards the Government of the Emperor, as up to
a certain point it pledged it towards the country, I believed
it my duty incidentally to consult M. Pasolini upon the
sense which might be attributed to it. The Minister of Fa.
reign Affairs began by declaring that there was no journal
in the country which had the right to speak in the name of
the Government, or to say that it was inspired by the Go.
vernment. lie made no difficulty in recognieing that—
after the declaration which had been made, the Roman
question must be for the hour put on one side—it was infi-
nitely too much spoken of in the Chamber and in the press ;
but, at the same time, he admitted that his colleagues and
he himself shared the opinion of the country, that Rome
was the natural capital of Italy. lie added that it was an
inheritance from M. de Cavour which every Italian Minis-
try must accept; that General Durand° had reaffirmed it;
that when he proposed to the Government of the Emperor
to negotiate, it was on the basis of Rome for the Italians ;
and that the only difference between the programme of the
present Cabinet and that of the former one was the absten-
tion from new overtures to the Government of the Emperor,
the latter believing that it could not accept a negotiation
upon that basis. ' But,' I said to M. Pasolini, it is a
veritable non possu2nui that you pronounce, while we in-
vite you to consult with the Court of Rome upon the ground
of conciliation. Do you not think it impolitic to tie your
hands beforehand without knowing whether events will
not give rise to combinations by which it would be useful
to profit for opening new negotiations ?' M. Pasolini ex-
claimed against the interpretation, much too absolute,
according to him, which I gava to his language, and he
explained to me that the prpsymt ministers would continue
to follow the march of events with the liveliest interest,
and that when they believed it possible to resume this ne-
gotiation with the Government f the Emperor, they
would hasten to do so. M. Pasolini reproduced to me
various considerations, amongst others, that which would
consist in leaving the Romans, by the withdrawal of our
troops, liberty to vote for the sovereign that pleased them,
as had been done in France, Greece, Sec. I heard M. Paso-
lini without interrupting him much. I could not, however,
refrain from observing, with regard to this last argument,
that if the new code of the rights of peoples allowed the fill-
ing, by their voice, of a throne which had become vacant, it
did not, nevertheless, admit the possibility of voting with
respect to a throne legally occupied, and that Europewould
have reason to be astonished if a monarchical country like
Italy should calmly propose the disposs asion of a sovereign
for the sake of public utility.
" The Minister of Foreign Affairs listened with attention
to the remarks which, in a friendly spirit, I was !ed to make
to him upon the dangers to the Italian Government of a
policy which, by declarations too absolute, would embarrass
its future action towards the Government of the Emperor.
M. Pasolini opposed himself to the supposition that thepre-
sent Cabinet could ever show itself ungrateful to France ;
and he insisted in his own name and in that of his col.
leagues upon their perfect determination to proceed in har-
mony with the Government of the Emperor and to rely
upon him. The language of M. Farini, who came to see
me after this interview, was of a nature rather to confirm
the friendly assurances of M. Pasolini. One fact remains
gained—it is the pause which is officially produced in the
Roman question by the accession of the new Cabinet.

" SARTIGES."

THE DANISH QUESTION.

The

collowing is
a translation of the despatch
addressed, under date Copenhagen, Jan. 5, 1863,
by the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Danish Envoy in London :
Sir,—Lord Rumen's despatch of Nov. 20, last year, has
been submitted to the King, and his Majesty has been
pleased at the last
meeting of the Privy Council to give me
his orders as to the reply.
" In respect to Holstein the Government of the King has
declared itself ready to concede to that province tho posi-
tion claimed for it by the Germanic Confederation, but
under the conditions expressed in my despatch of October 15
—to wit, that by this concession the entire monarchy be
not reduced to a continual dependence on Germany, and
that by this sacrifice our relations with the Confederatioa
be placed on a durable b :sis. The King's Government has
found with satisfaction in the despatch of Lord Russell
of the 20th of November a cordial approbation of these
indispensable conditions for the maintenance of the Danish
Monarchy. The object of the negotiations which, at the

invitation of L9rd Russell, we opened with the

Courts of Berlin and Vienna, was to find the means of con-
ciliating the requirements of the Confederation with these
legitimate conditions. In taking note of the complete ad-
hesion given to them by Lord Russell, we indulge the hope
that if some day there should be a question of maintaining
them against the Confederation, his lordship would as little
hesitate then as now in his appreciation of their necessity.
" But if there be, as to the definitive object, conformity
between the views of Lord Russell and the resolutions rela-
tive to Holstein which the King's Government has declared
itself'ready, if need be, to take, I regret that I cannot say as
much in respect to the signification which must be ascribed
to such a step. Lord Russell seems to regard as a simple
act of duty on the part of the King's Government, what in
reality is an important sacrifice extorted by the force of
circumstances.

"In oppesition to this strange opinion, I must be per-
mitted to remind his Lordihip that the fundamental Act of
Confederation expressly-describes its members as ' sovereign
Princes,' as also that the final Act of Vienna describes in so
many words the Confederation as composed of sovereign
and reciprocally independent' States, the union of which
had precisely for object to guarantee the sovereign rights
of each.' By joining this system the members of the Con-
federation undertook certain obligations defined in the Acts,
but they never transferred their sovereignty to the Dia of
Frankfort. The King of Denmark is bound to fulfil faith-

fully his federal obligations; but he has not surrendered to
any one his right to regulate the internal off sirs of Holstein,
as little as the other members of the Confederation have
done so for their States. It would, indeed, be a strange
misconception of the public law of Europe to assert, as a
principle, that the members of the Confederation owed ab-
solute obedience to the decrees of the I,)iet, whatever might
be their nature or object.

" With Denmark the observation of the limits assigned to
the competency of the Diet is the 'Lore necessary as Hol-
stein on becoming part of the Confederation did not cease to
become a province of the Danish Monarchy. In assuming to
be the supreme arbitrer as to the internal affairs of Holstein,
the Diet not only encroaches on the sovereign rights of the
King in respect to that province, but infringes on the consti-
tutional relati ns existing between Holstein and the rest of
the State, and even on the independence of the Danish Mo-
narchy itself. It is evident that, wiatever be the
opinion entertained as to the compete/13y of the Diet
in respect to the affairs of Holstein—all the other
questions belong exclusively to the domain of
international law. In their respect there can,
of course, be no question about federal decrees or federal
execution, but simply of transactions between one Power
and another Power, and in the last resort of international
means of coercion. What is now done against Denmark on
account of Holstein may be done against the Netherlands
in regard to Lin;iburg, even against Prussia and Austria
themselves in respect to their German provinces, which far
more than Holstein are embraced in a close centralization
with other provinces that are not federal. It is true that
material power is an argument that tires not admit of being
set aside with the same impunity as a just claim.
"Lord Russell adds to his views about federal law this
observation—that, generally speaking, ho does not find any- 1
thing unreasonable in the demand that no law and no tax
should be enforced in Holstein without having b2en ap-
proved by the Provincial Estates. It is sufficient for me to
remark in this respect that the Provincial Estates cf Hol-
stein are already invested with adeliberative vote in regard
to every now tax and every provincial law. As for the
common affairs of the Monarch); it is notorious that the
Constitutional system is not ony recognized, but—what is
of more importance—loyally practised. If the Holsteiners
no longer sit in the "Rigsraal" to exercise there their
legitimate share in the legislative rights, it is sufficiently
known that the fault is not dut to the King's Government.
But that which requires to be proved is that a province can
claim the enjoyment of its Constitutional rights in such a
manner as to exercise them separately, and that foreign
States, and particularly the Diet of Frankfort, have a right
to constrain the King of DenAark to yield to such a demand.
" Having exhausted every 'mans of defending his right,
and finding himself placed iathe alterna five of either weak-
ening the bonds which connect the province of Holstein
with the Monarchy, or of renteing the entire Monarchy to
a vassalage of the Confederation, the King's Government
has no choice left it. But. Then yielding to a claim so ex-
cessive and so ill•founded, the Government thinks
itself entitled to expect that the great European Powers,
who, by inserting in the Ast of the Congress of Vienna
the fundamental principles of the Germanic Confederation,
acquired the right of controlling their observance, will at
least give it credit for its Eacrifice. Those powers have pro-.
claimed the principle of the
integrity of the Monarchy. It
seems, therefore, but just fiat they should at least guarantee
the Monarchy against evert' encroachment going beyond the
geographical limits of the Confederation, against every fur-
ther attempt to underrainothe foundation of the State.
"Lord Russell next occupies himself with Schleswig,
and
he takes as star ing point for his remarks the agreement
which, according to him, essts as to the question of Light, 1

so that there only remains to be discussed a question of
facts. I cannot follow Lord Russell in this rather too
practical a manner of simplifying Ihe question. The great
question overrull ng the whole matter—both the question of
facts and that of the means of modifying a state of things
which does not agree with the wishes of Germany—is
just this :—Has the Confederation really a right to interfere
in the affairs of a Danish province for which the King has
never joined the Confederation? We have established—and
up to the present time the Germanic Diet has never seri-
ously tried to prove the contrary, preferring—and un-
fortunately with too great success—the more convenient
method of ignoring our argument-,—we have established
that ail the King engaged himself to do in respect
to Schleswig he immediately and completely accomplished.
These engagements did not contain any clause what-
ever respecting the languages in Schleswig. What the
King did was this :—ln an ordinance addressed to his
own subjects he proclaimed the principles which he in-
tended to follow, end, among others, also those respecting
the regulation of languages and the equal maintenance of
both nationalities. Now, this circumstance can assuredly
not justify any foreign interference whatever for the pur-
pose of controlling the King's Government in the exercise
of its functions. That ordinance was communicated to the
Diet at Frankfort; but on communicating it the King's
Envoy expressly remarked that the Diet would learn from it
what position the Government assigned to Holstein, and it
is with the same restriction that the 1 det took note of that
document by its decree of July 29, 1852. All the rest of
the ordinance did not, therefore, concern the Diet, and the
same pretended right of which it now avails itself for inter-
fering in the question of languages in Schleswig, it might
any day equally well invoke also for the purpose of control-
ling the King's Government in respect to the manner in
which it observed the stipulations of the fundamental law
of the kingdom, for the observance of that law is quite as
much promised in the ordinance as the quality of languages.
" Thus neither public law generally, nor the diplomatic
correspondence of 1851 authorises any intervention what-
ever of the Confederation in the affairs of Schleswig ; and
the King's Government would betray the most sacred inte-
rests of the State if it made a compromise as to this capital
principle—that the authority of the Germanic Confederation
can in no case be extended beyond the frontier of Holstein.
"That principle the King's Government has always
maintained. But it has, at the same time, had too much
regard for public opinion in Europe to be willing to incur
the blame of being a Government that, while keeping within
the limits of its strict rights, did not take int.r. sufficient ac-
count the liberty and moral progress of its subjects. For
this reason toe Government has spared no pains in expos-
ing and refuting the errors and perversions of truth in re-
spect to tile state of things in Schleswig which, from lute •
rested motives, have been put in circulation. But, as the
price of its good intentions, it has found that the more it
tried to elucidate and explain facts, the more the question
of right was lost sight of by those to whom it appealed.
Our explanations, resting on a thorough knowledge of the
case, have been balanced by the contrary assertions of the
German Powers. who had, nevertheless, themselves ad-
mitted the difficulty of their uiscerning the truth. Recently
Lord Russell has even preferred to found his opinion on
the report of a subaltern agent, whose goodwill has not
been able to supply the want of those o. her qualities which
were necessary for understanding and judging of such com-
plicated matters of details.
" By reason of this sad experience the King's Govern-
ment deems it to be its duty henceforth to confine itself to
the sole question of right, which sufficiently justifies its re •
fusal to enter into any negotiation concerning the internal
affairs of Schleswig.
" Besides, what could I say on the subject of the different
projects mentioned in Lord Russell's last despatch? I
would assuredly tot have to dwell at length on these pro-
positions, which his Lordship himself admits would be less
acceptable to Denmark than the one to which he has given
the preference. As to that one I have already expressed
myself in my despatch of October the lbth. Lord isussell
renews again the assurance of the desire of the British
Cabinet to preserve the existence and integrity of Denmark.
But that integrity Lord Russell's proposition would infalli-
bly destroy, by dividing the Monarchy into a number of
parts, all of which, enjoying in reality all the attributes of
sovereignty, would be only connected together by a Council
of State, a sort of common representative Assembly, it is
true, but which, condemned to impotence from the very
first, would, undoubtedly, within a brief period, altogether
cease to exist. lam sorry to say it, but this dismember-
ment of the Monarchy Lord Russell's despatch has all the
appearance of regarding as an already accomplished fact.
The idea from which he starts is, in fact, that of a union of
States connected alone ly the person of the Sovereign, and
not at all the principle hitherto exclusively recognised by
the public law of Europe, that of the unity of the Danish
Crown. That Monarchy, in short, which the British
Cabinet wishes to preserve, the arrangement proposed by
Lord Russell would deprive of independence, the essence of
life, by favouring a regulation cf the constitution affairs
which has no other title to recommend it than that of hav-
ing been suggested by the German Powers.
" There is but one way open, and it is the one which the
King's Government has declared its intention to follow.
On the one side, we must submit to the necessity of granting
to the Holstein Estates that position which the Diet of
Frankfort claims for there; -but with the reservations ne -
cessary to prevent that province trona becoming the master
and arbiter of the rest of the Monarchy. On the other side,
Schleswig must continue to be excluded from the action of
the Confederates, and retain its constitutional relations with
the kingdom for the common affairs, The first point will
exclude every pretext for federal execution in Holstein.
The second point is the indispensable condition for the ex-
istence of the Danish State, and if Lord Russell fears that
the development of the legally existing state of things for
the kingdom and Schleswig would result in some violent
explosion, the King's Government is firmly convinced that
such an explosion could only be brought about by foreign
instigations and acts of violence. Such an eventuality the
Government will look forward to with that calmness and
resolution which the conscience of its good right inspires.
" You will please to read this despatch to Lord Russell,
and leave him a copy of it.
" I have the honour, &c.,

" HALL."