The Sun.
London, England, 1862-04-18 00:00:00

" In this appendix it is said as to point I,

to the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and to
leave him a copy."

The following is a translation of a despatch from
the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Danish Missions at Berlin and Vienna, dated Co-
penhagen, March 12, 1862 :
" In the despatch of the Bth of last month, with
which you are already acquainted, the Prussian Mi-
nister of Foreign Affairs (Austrian Minister) dwells
upon the uselessness of recriminations and fruitless
polemics. I fully share his opinion in this respect,
and will prove that I do so by the present com-
munication. I will therefore try at once to bring
the negotiation back to what was its origin and
primary object.
" The negotiation had its origin in the two Federal
resolutions of March 8, 1860, and Feb. 7, 1861. Its
object is to bring about an understanding as to the
meaning and realisation of the provisional state of
things prescribed for Holstein by the said Federal
resolutions. In connexion with this, these two re-
solutions refer to another Federal resolution of Feb.
11, 1858, stipulating in regard to a definitive ar-
rangement That a state of things should be
brought about in the Duchies of Holstein and Lau-
enburg which conformed to the Federal legislation
and the promises that had been made, especially
securing the independence of the separate constitu-
tions and administrations, and the enjoyment of
equality of rights.'
" If therefore the present negotiation should fulfil
the general wish of preparing the way for a com-
plete settlement of this long-pending dispute, it
would also have to embrace this other question, and
it would be the more desirable that it should do so,
inasmuch as we have hitherto been unsuccessful in
obtaining from the Confederation any definite ex-
planation as to what it understands by the inde-
pendence and equality of rights of the Duchies of
Holstein and Lauenburg.
" Such is, according to our view, the double object
of the negotiation which was opened last summer,
under the sanction of the Confederation, with the
two German Powers, but the actual commencement
of which we still await.

" We believe that we have made, in our despatch
of October 26, a practical proposition, and which
ought to have been satisfactory, at least, to the
Confederation. For we offered to join in an agree-
ment, by which the Holstein Estates would have
been endowed with a deliberative authority and a
right of voting the subsidies, such as the Diet had
claimed for the Estates, coupled alone with those
conditions which were indispensable if the exist-
ence of the Danish Monarchy should not be com-
promised, or the rights of the other territorial parts
of the Monarchy be trenched upon. On the other
hand, any change in that proposed state of things
would have been made dependent on the free
consent of the Estates. A common constitution,
embracing the German Duchies, and which his Ma-
jesty's Government still continues to hold out to
those Duchies, could not, therefore, be promulgated
without the assent of the Estates. Whether such
an arrangement be designated as provisional or de-
finitive is quite immaterial, for a constitutional
order of things would in this manner at any rate
have been brought about, and one that was not
limited to any defined period, nor susceptible of
being altered otherwise than with the consent of
the Estates themselves. The Estates of Holstein
would consequently have obtained so completely the
position claimed for them that the Confederation
could withdraw from all further interference in the

matter, with the conviction of having secured to the
fullest extent for the two Federal territories all it
had in view, as the definitive object of the resolu,
tion of February 11, and even more than it had had
any right to claim.

" Instead, however, of submitting to a detailed
examination the proposals made in our despatch of
October 26, the Prussian Minister of Foreign Af-
fairs has preferred to set aside all consideration of
these proposals for the question, whether his Majes-
ty's Government regarded itself as still bound by
the declarations it had made in the negotiations of
1852?

" Though this question has certainly surprised us
it is, nevertheless, some satisfaction to find that the
Prussian Government, on its side, adheres to that
agreement, and the considerations on which it was
founded; for we must confess that it had often ap-
peared to us quite impossible to reconcile the de-
mands of the Germanic Confederation with that
agreement. As for us, we do not hesitate to declare
that his Majesty's Government will, of course, con-
scientiously fulfil every engagement it has con-
tracted. The rule obtains, however, here, as well as
in every other international transaction, that neither
of the contracting parties can claim the right of
ascribing to any of the expressions contained in the
previous correspondence the same validity that
belongs to the stipulations of the final agreement,
which both parties had acknowledged, and that in
case of a difference of opinion, neither of the con-
tracting parties can claim an exclusive right of
interpretation as to the meaning and purport of
that compact, Only in so far as the question con-
cerns the internal affairs of the German Federal
territories is it to be referred to the forum of
the Germanic Confederation, and then only in so
far as it comes within the limits of the Federal law.
Beyond these limits, and especially in regard to the
constitutional relations of those territories to the

collective Danish Monarchy, the question bears
an international character, and can only be
settled by negotiations and agreements, in respect
to which an appeal to the last resort—that of
force, in order to compel a one-sided interpretation
cannot assume the character of a Federal execution.
" When we chiefly refer to general international

rules, which in point of principle cannot be disputed,
the reason for so doing is simply this—that the
question addressed to us has been put in such gene-
ral terms that it excludes all discussion of what was
the real purport of the agreement come to in 1852.
If such a discussion should be desired, we would be
valorised to expect that at least an attempt should
be made to point oui, what are the obligations we
are supposed not to have fulfilled. We may take it
for granted that the Prussian Government does not
intend to make us responsible for those Federal

" ' As sincerely as his Majesty the Emperor de-
sires to see soon firmly established the order and
welfare of the Danish State by means of a definitive
organisation corresponding to its wants, as confi-
dently does his Majesty entertain the hope that the
Danish Gov&nment, in its endeavours to accomplish
this end, will not give the institutions which in the
last years have been conferred on the Kingdom of
Denmark proper an exclusive preference, but that
it will keep in view, as the only sure aim to be fol-
lowed, the permanent relations of the whole Mon-
archy and the object of strengthening the bonds
uniting it as a whole. Once assured of this his
Majesty will not delay to take part with other
friendly Powers in securing those bonds by the
international guaranty of a common succession for
all parts of the Monarchy.'
"In /nerd to point 2 the same document ex-
pressly stipulates,—

resolutions that have encouraged the Holstein Estates
in their determinate resistance to all and every com-
mon representation, and this in the most direct con-
tradiction with the agreement of 1852 ; for Federal
resolutions, which we have done our best to combat,
and to which we have finally only submitted under
the menace of a Federal execution, which we did
not deem it in the interest of the country to subject
it to.
" If this appeal to the transactions of 1852 should
have been occasioned by a wish to extend the present
negotiation to the affairs of the Duchy of Schleswig,
his Majesty's Government cannot accede to such a

" In the declaration of his Majesty the King
of Denmark, that neither an incorporation of the
Duchy of Schleswig, into the kingdom, nor any
steps tending to such a result will be taken, the
Imperial Court sees with satisfaction a renewed
confirmation of that promise which the late King
Christian VIII. gave to his subjects, and which the
now reigning Sovereign, immediately on the con-
clusion of the peace of July 2, 1850, repeated in the
manifest of the 11th of that month, and which also,
in conformity with the 4th Article of the said treaty
of peace, was communicated to the Germanic Con-
federation as a resolution adopted by the King with
a view to the pacification of the country.'
" In view of the state of the present pending ne-
gotiation we may regard ourselves as dispensed
from the necessity of examining in detail the bear-
, in of the projects of law mentioned in the begin-
'leg, the provisional or definitive character with
which the Danish Government may invest thorn.
andthe relation in which they stand to the agree-
ments we have called attention to.
11 at -wo cannot abstain from declaring already,
IiONV that we cannot
recognise the legality of the
legislative or constitutive acts that conflict with the
relations othe
t
f
ofs
b
l Denmark,n
other parts of the monarchy
a
the other hand; expressly against all in-
ferences which might be drawn from such acts, and
established
and
by
to
the agreements of 1851-2. We
protest,
reserve to Prussia and the Germanic Confederation
all rights founded on the aforesaid agreements.
"You are requested to read this communication

wish. For the present negotiation regards alone a
dispute with the Confederation as to a German
Federal territory, while the affairs of the Duchy of
Schleswig in no wise concern the Confederation.
When the Prussian Minister, nevertheless, now
maintains that it would be only possible in that
manner to substitute a definitive arrangement for a
merely provisional one, I refer him to his own des.
patch, in which the demands made by the Federal
resolution of February 11, IF_%B, are described as
stipulations for a' definitive arrangement,' though
no mention is made either in the said resolution, or
indeed in any other Federal resolution of the affairs
of Schleswig.
" If we cannot consent to give to the present nego-
tion another and a different direction from that
which properly belongs to it, we certainly cannot, on
the other hand, prevent the Prussian Government
from bringing up the question it desires to have dis-
cussed in some other way. The Minister knows
what are our views on the subject from the corre-
spondence exchange in 1860, and the views thus
expressed by us we eprtainly continue to hold in all
essential points, nor have we any reason for desir-
ing to avoid a renewed discussion of the subject.
An expression in the despatch of Feb. 8 obliges me,
however, at once to state that it is a complete mis-
take when the Prussian Minister believes to have
discovered in our despatch of Dec. 26 an admission
on our part that the question as to the treatment
of the two nationalities existing in the country had
in any rnanner whatever been the subject of nego-
tiations in 1851-52.
" It remains to notice the despatch of Feb. 14,
which was handed me at the same time as that of

TllE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 18, 1862.

Feb. 8, and to decline admitting the protest therein
set forth.

"It cannot have cscaped the attention of the
Minister with how much solicitude his Majesty's
Government has proceeded in order to avoid any
steps that might in any way affect prejudicially the
pending negotiation concerning the constitutional
position of the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg.
If the Minister will continue to devote his attention
to the proceedings of the Government and Rigs-
raad, he will be convinced of the pains taken to
maintain intact the basis laid down by the Procla-
mation of Jan. 28,1852, in so far as the interference
of the Confederation has not rendered that impos-
sible, He will also notice that the wish expressed
on various sides that the special constitution of the
Duchy of Schleswig should be abrogated and an in-
corporation take place, by extending to the duchy
the constitution of the kingdom, has met with no
encouragement either on the part of the Govern-
ment or of the; Rigsraad. The fears of the
Minister are therefore ground:ess. As the
Prussian Government can,' of course, lay claim
to no right of interfering in the internal affairs
of the Danish Monarchy, or to pronounce judg-
ment on the acts of the Government in such re-
spects,' I may, in conclusion, confine myself to the
remark that a recognition on the part of the Con-
federation of the Rigsraad, which represents only
those territories that do not belong to the Confede-
ration, neither has nor could be demanded, for the
Risgraad does not at all stand in need of such a re-
cognition.
"Having thus, as I believe, sufficiently answered
the question that has been put to his Majesty's Go-
vernment, I trust that the Prussian Minister of
Foreign Affairs will no longer find any reason for
delaying to inform us of his views as to the propo-
sition made in the despatch of October 26 last year,
and that he will especially, clearly and distinctly,
explain in what manner that proposition does not
satisfy the claims of independence and equality of
rights made on behalf of Holstein, and, if so, what
then is the exact position which the Confederation
claims for that territory.

"You will be good enough to bring this despatch
to the knowledge of the Minister of Foreign Af-
fairs, and leave with him a copy of the same.—l
have the honour, &c., " HALL."

before deciding whether or not they would grant a
rule.—Judgment deferred.

WELLS V. WEI3IIEII,—LIBEL.
This was an action for libel tried at the last
Westminster after term sittings before the Lord
Chief Justice Cockburn, when the jury returned a
verdict for the plaintiff, damages £3OO. The plain-
tiff is an eminent practitioner, residing at the West-
end, and the defendant is a retired practitioner, re-
siding at Tunbridge Wells. The action was for
libel, contained in a letter written by the defendant
and published in the Medical Circular. The libel
had reference to a printed lecture, delivered by the
plaintiff-at one of the London hospitals, relative to
fistula and its treatment, a copy of which he gave
to the boots of the hotel at Buxton, in Derbyshire,
with a request that he would take it to the defen-
dant's bedroom and give it to him. The boots, how-
ever, neglected to do so, and the consequence was
that it was left about on the letter shelf. The prin-
cipal objection to the exposure of the pamphlet was
that it contained engravings regugnant to decency,
and unfit for females and young persons' eyes.
Mr. Webber appeared in person, and moved for
a new trial, on the ground that the plaintiff's state-
ments on the trial were adverse to the facts of the
case.

The Lord Chief Justice said that could not be,
because no evidence was called for the defence.

Mr. Webber bitterly complained that his counsel
acted on the trial contrary to his (Mr. Webier's)
express directions. He tried all he could to induce
his counsel to call him, but he declined. Mr.
Webber then moved for a new trial on affidavits
and misdirection relative to no witnesses being
called for the defence.
The Lord Chief Justice said the letter was the
most malignant one man could pen of another. In
summing up the case to the jury he (the learned
judge) commented on the fact of the defendant's
absence from the witness-box to give any explana-
tions how the pamphlet got exposed to general view,
and the probable inference to be drawn therefrom.

Mr. Webber then proceeded at considerable length
to vindicate his conduct with reference to the writ-
ing and the publication of the letter complained of.
He had a duty to discharge both to society and the
profession in calling attention to the circumstances
connected with the publication of the pamphlet at
Buxton. He had witnesses in court at the time of
the trial—clergymen, members of the legal profes-
sion, and the servants of the hotel, who if called
would have completely altered the complexion of
the case. He had no fear of going into the witness-
box and urged it with great interest, but his coun-
sel refused to call him or any of his witnesses, and
he (Mr. Webber) complained that he had not been
fairly treated by his counsel.
The Lord Chief Justice said the defendant was
asking the court to do what it had never done be-
fore; that was, when a learned counsel had chosen
to go to the jury without calling witnesses and the
verdict was adverse to him, for the court to grant a
new trial. The defendant in effect now said that his
counsel had betrayed his trust, and he therefore
asked for a new trial in order to open up the whole
of the question. That could not be done.
Mr. Webber said it was hard that he should suf-
fer for the acts of his counsel, especially when he
had acted contrary to express instructions. He
also complained that the learned judge's observa-
tions to the jury had the effect of inducing them to
give heavier damages than they otherwise would
done. The observation that he had not gone into
the box and explained his conduct he thought un-
called for under the circumstances. It was evident
that the plaintiff's desire was more to clutch
coin than vindicate his character, for almost im-
mediately after the trial execution was issued, and
the sheriff's men came to his (Mr. Webber's) house
to seize for the amount. ' He offered to refer the
matter to professional men, and abide by their
decision ; but Mr. Wells declined. Mr Webber then
proceeded to make a lengthened statement with re-
ference to the plaintiff's connection with the _Medi-
cal Journal and other extraneous matters.
The Lord Chief Justice said that the defendant
was then showing by his address that the defen-
dant's counsel had exercised a wise discretion in
not putting him into the box, considering that his
conduct in the box would go to swell and aggravate
the damages.
Mr. Webber then handed in several affidavits,
which were read. They denied the plaintiff's state-
ment witb.reference to the publication of the pam-
phlet at Buxton.
After hearing the defendant at considerable
length,
The Court refused to grant a rule.
Rule refused.