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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 16, 1863.

a common deliberative Assembly, and that arrangement was
absolutely refused! klloleteiminformeMeikoathat, under
no circumstances would she corisent to-eulli a proposal, and
even tin-Ur the tannstrous proposition which was put for-
wet d on the part of Germany, that the three duchies Hol-
stein, Schleswig, and Lauenberg, being in the aggregate
considerably lees than the division of Denmark Proper,
should yet have each an equal numerieal share in the repre-
sentation of the country, and should be able not only to
control their own affairs absolutely, but actually to exer-
cise an administrative and controlling power over the in-
ternal affairs of the kingdom of Denmark Proper. What
was the next declaration of Holstein ? It was only the
other day that the Estates came to the determination
that no arrangement would be satisfactory which did
not recognise the ancient indissoluble union between
Schleswig and Holstein. But that union has been
practically abolished for a considerable period, and in those
particular engagements to which reference had been made,
it was recognised that that union did not exist, and that it
sl.ould not be sought to be re-establ.shed. (Hear, hear.)
Yet that union, the dissolution of which formed a main
point in the diplomatic negotiations of 1851, and which was
affirmed by all the Powers, was declared by the Estates of
Holstein to be the one condition without which it would be
impossible to come to any practical or amicable arrange-
ment with the kingdom of Denmark under any circum
stances whatever. (Hear, hear,) The King of Denmark,
finding it impossible either by means of an united Parlia-
ment cr by separate legislation to come to any terms with
this Assembly of Holstein, made up his mind to a great sac-
rifice on the part of Denmark; and, although he did not
admit the extent to which the Federal Diet pressed their
claims over the administration of Holstein, he yet consented,
for the purpose of doing away with any pretence which
could be made for interference with the rest of his domi-
nions, to give to Holstein all, and more than all Holstein
herself had asked, with the exception of the union with
Schleswig, and all, and more than all, the German Powers,
on the part of Holstein, had demanded. He gave to Hol-
stein a complete autonomy, exclusive administration within
its own territory, control over its own budget, power over
its own laws ; and though by so doing he materially weak.
ened the collective power of Denmark, he consented to this
course for the purpose of showing that, as far as Holstein
was concerned, he had gone even beyond those demands
with which it was entitled to expect compliance. (Hear,
hear.) In doing so, however, he was careful to press
this point, that beyond the limits of Holstein the Federal
Diet had no more right to interfere with Denmark in the
administration of its internal affairs than any other Power
in Europe. (Cheers.) It is as Duke of Holstein that the
King of Denmark is subject to the control of the Federal
Diet, and, as regards Fehleswig and Denmark Proper, he is
as independent a Sovereign as the Sovereign who sits on
the throne of these realms. (Cheers.) As far as the Federal
Diet is concerned it clearly has no locus standi; and when
all the claims of Holstein are satisfied, for the Federal Diet
to interfere with the other portions of the Kingdom of Den-
mark would be a piece of gratuitous impertinence. (Cheers.)
I do regret that mere motu and spontaneously the King of
Denmark did not take upon himself to remove, by the power
which he possesses, any just, reasonable cause of complaint
which the inhabitants of Schleswig may have against the
administration and m de of carrying on the government,
but the question is, to what extant have the grievances been
carried ? What demand is there which has not been com-
plied with ? In what respects has the King of Denmark
violated any engagement he had entered into ? The main
engagements were two—first of all that Schleswig should
not be incorporated with the kingdom of Denmark; and,
secondly, that the Danish and German subjects should be
treated on an equal footing. My lords, it is not to be denied
that Schleswig has been made a stalking horse for the ambi-
tion of Germany. (Hear.) It is not to be denied that there
has been a considerable immigration into Schleswig; that a
considerable number of German settlers, amounting to
nearly one-half of the population, have settled themselves
there; and they demand equal laws and equal justice. The
points involved are really comparatively trifling when you
look at the enormous and important consequences that may
result from any serious misunderstanding in regard to them.
They amount to this—that in one village there are a cer-
tain number of Germans, in another, a certain number of
Danes, and in a third a mixed population—one where the
German element prevails, another in which the German
and Danish elements are equal; and up to the present time
the King of Denmark has not been able to arrive at a solu-
tion of the difficulty as regards education in the schools or
service in the churches with - respect to the language of
Germany. There is no other charge against the King
of Denmark than that he has not been able to solve
that difficulty, expressing his readiness to do his
utmost to solve it. Are ru, then, to compel him to
enter into an engagement, which, in his opinion and in the
opinion of his subjects, amounts to a vio'ation of the inte-
grity and a dissolution of the monarchy ? (Hear,) The
original proposition of the noble earl was very just and rea-
sonable, He repudiated the union between Schleswig and
Denmark ; he repudiated the extravagant claims for equal
representation in favour of small minorities; he repudiated
any right of interference with regard to Schleswig, except
so far as the engagements of the King of Denmark in 1851
were concerned, and I entirely concur with him in his policy,
but where was it ever laid down in the engagements of 1851
—or (although it might be contemplated that Schleswig was
never to be incorporated with Denmark) was it not assidu-
ously and carefully notified that Schleswig should not be
separated from the kingdom of Denmark ? Had not the
King and people of Denmark a perfect right to say, ,iNtre
consent, to obviate embarrassment, that Schleswig shall
not be incorporated with Denmark ?" being, as it were, like
Hanover with this couniry, bound together by no other tie
than that of the Sovereign ; but when you call on the Ring
of Denmark, without the most pressing reasons, still fur-
ther to weaken and dissolve his monarchy by a complete
separation of Schleswig, you call upon him to do that which
you have no right to do—an act of no less singular injustice
than impolicy. (Hear, hear.) The integrity of the mo-
narchy of Denmark is a matter of vital importance to this
country. She is a small country, but a country with the
most resolute, determined, honest, and honourable popula-
tion, She is a country in which there is a large, perhaps
the largest amount of personal and political freedom of any
country in Europe. next to our own ; and she is a country,
moreover, well. disposed to England. Whatever interrup-
tion of that friendship there may have been from time to
time, we may hope that a tie recently formed may connect
us still more closely together. (Cheers.) She has interests,
feelings, and affections with this country, and email as she
is, yet the character of her people, great power in compa-
rison with her population, and her geographical position
on the map of,Europe, in case of an European war, would
render her en important ally, even for England. It
ia, then, an act of policy as well as justice, when ambitious
Powers are pressing Denmark, to protect her from aggres.
sion ; and though, God forbid the last extremity should be
forced upon us, yet on a question whether the Danish mo-
narchy should be destroyed and its integrity frittered away,
and, still more, be placed by collateral means and indirect
influences as a dependency of the German Federation, there
is no alternative not preferable on the part of England, on
the ground of policy as well as justice, to such a consequ' nce
as the dissolution of the monarchy or its dependence on the
German Confederation. On that ground I do deeply lament
that the noble earl has departed from his original proposi-
tion. I feel certain that with a firm attitude held by us in
concurrence with Russia, and as I believe with France, we
should have shown the German Powers that, though not dis-
posed to withholding anything from their just rights, we are
not content to allow with impunity any unauthorised or un-
called for aggression on the liberties of Denmark. (Cheers.)
Lard WODEHOUSE thought that, if Denmark was
bound to fulfil her engagements, Germany was also bound
in honour not to place insurmountable obstacles in her
way. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH
in reply,

Earl RUSSELL said it would not be convenient to pro-
duce the papers asked for just now, but at an early date
they would be forthcoming if desired.
TELEGRAPHS BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
FURIOUS DRIVING.

The Marquis of -WESTMEATH moved for a return of
the number of persons killed and maimed within the Me-
tropolitan and City Police districts within the last twelve-
months, by persons driving vehicles at furious rates in the
public thoroughfares. From 1858 to 1861 there had been 30
persons killed, and 130 maimed in the City district; and
140 killed, and 1,457 maimed in the Metropolitan dis-
trict; and he thought something ought to be done.
Pecuniary fines, which were paid by the drivers' masters,
were clearly useless.—Agreed to.

CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL,

This bill was read a third timo.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND).
The Commons' amendments to this bill were agreed to.
CITY OF DUBLIN RAILWAY BILL.
Lord TALBOT DE MALAHIDE complained that this
railway would be a great disfigurement to the City of
Dublin, and moved that the evidence taken before the com-
mittee be printed.

Ai ter some discussion the motion was negatived.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
PETIT lONS.

By Mr. MUNDY, from the archdeacon and 174 clergy-
men of the archdeaconry of Derby in favour of the closing
of public houses on Sunday, and against the sale of Sunday
newspapers, the running of trains and steamboats, which
required a great amount of labour on the Sabbath, and thus
led to its desecration; Sir H. STRACEY, from Great Yar-
mouth, against the closing of public-houses in the Sabbath ;
Mr. PEASE and Mr. BRIGHT, in favour of the closing of
the closing of public-houses on the Sabbath.