The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-28 00:00:00

trt-nt'im -,-)Ant•

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1848.

Afflicting intelligence is now continually arriving
from the seat of war between Denmark and the Ger-
manic Confederation. One dispatch contains a ru-
mour of the sudden death of FREDERICK VII., from
an attack of bronchitis. Another recounts a pro-
longed and sanguinary struggle before the chief
city of the Scandinavian Duchy‘ of, Se hlsw
struggle which is presumed to have
terminated in
the capture of that city by the Prussian Although
the vicissitudes of the conflict cannot be expected ex?ected to
bring the question at issue one jot nearer
redoubled
interest it is impossible not to regard with r
interest a kingdom, the integrity of which has been
so shame•lessly imperilled, and the nationality of which
has been,so unjustifiably threatened with destrucion.
Every additional disapler to the Danish armament
merely tends to add poignancy to our indignation.
That Prussia has drawn the sword of spoliation on
the northern banks of the Eider—that Hanover has
advanced in the van of this lawless expedition—that
Alecklenburgli has abetted the cause of dismember-
ment—that adventurers and propag.l.:dists, as demti-
tute in prirci•ni..:, as in pene, have swelled the ranks
of the invading army—are only so many supple-
thentsry arguments against the justice of this fede-
rative conspiracy. It has by no means advanced the

TB

character of the Berlin Government, or elevated the )
reputation of the Chevalier BUNSEN himself, to find
that representative of the Prussian SOVEREIGN
undertaking an elaborate defence of a policy
the first feeble development of which excited the
universal execration of Europe. The mere circum-
stance of an ambassador, situated as the Chevalier
BUNSEN is in the capital of Great Britain, publishing
an enormous pamphlet to exonerate his Royal master
before the population of England, was of itself calcu-
lated to excite an extraordinary amount of suspicion.
Nor would this suspicion be at all dispelled when the
pamphlet is found to be a jumble of incongruous
facts linked together by sophistries—the fragments of
the skeletons of History, hung upon the wires of
Misrepresentation. 'When, moreover, the tone of the
pamphleteer proves to be that of a special pleader
rather than of a dispassionate antiquary, it becomes
insanity to repose an unconditional credence either in
-he legality of his cause or in the rectitude of his
political principles.
already a vast deal has been said as to the respective
rights of the competitors, as to the claims of Jutland
or Holstein, of Denmark or of the Germanic Confede-
ration. Chevalier BUNSEN has written ; Mr. 'Ms-
RAELI has spoken; we ourselves have repeatedly
commented upon the contrary pleas entered by thi.-!
different disputants. By this time the problem has
become transparent—the subject has been worn abso-
lutely threadbare under the friction of debate. To
a clear perception and an unbiassed intellect there can
no longer remain any doubt whatever as to the cruni •
nality of the course adopted by the German
Princes. If the popular judgment could not
be obscured by sophisms or distorted by, the
guile of a false diplomacy, then the sanctity of the
cause of Denmark in claiming Schleswig as an
integral portion of her dominions would at this in-
stant be as indisputable as the librations of the moon
or the elliptic orbit of the globe. Such, however,
is not the character of the mind of the multitude.
Public opinion is unhappily anything but case-
hardened against deception. And thus it is, that,
notwithstanding all that has been uttered respecting
the line of demarcation running between Schleswig
and Holstein, the popular mind is still in a great
measure undecided as to the merits of this territorial
questionet
eis
that
ho
ae Thistx
ci
su s
aea
bt
say
ae
y. ofindecision
eenth factseis
they
a or
fe
viewedt
he unhealthy,ca sapart
from is
p a
or 1t
uthnejmuss
from the declamations of partizanship, are as simple
as the merest sum of addition scrawled upon the
slate of a schoolboy. Therefore it is that we are
distressed at the continuance of this indecision. One
argument alone we cannot but regard as conclusive

in reference to the indivisibility of Northern Jutland
and of Schleswig. It is an argument which has never
yet been adduced throughout the whole of this pro-
longed and elaborate discussion, and it is one which
to our thinking is amply sufficient to show the rea-
sonableness of the claims of FREDERICK VII. On
turning to the general treaty signed in 1815
between the ♦arious nations and principalities 01
Christendom we find (Article LVI.) in the enumera-
tion of the votes receivable in the Federative Diet
this significant item—" Dannemarc pour Holstein, une
voix—Denmark for Holstein, one vote." Not, be it
observed, "for Holstein and Schleswig," but "for
Holstein" simply. Again (Article LVIII.) in the
catalogue of the constituent portions of the General
Assembly, there is a still more significant item—

" Holstein, trois voix—three votes." Not a word
about Schleswig ! Now we ask any rational man
whether the Germanic Confederation would have main•

tained such a profound silence in 1815 upon this
particular, supposing it had entered for a moment
into the imagination of any one of its Princes that
Germany was being despoiled, by this deliberate re•
servation of the name of one of the. principal appa-
nage-5 of the Crown of Denmark. We dety any ra-
tional man to answer us in the affirmative.

By the reference we have here made, however, to

the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, we would
on no account have it imagined that we regard the
claims of Denmark as principally defensible through
that international compact. We merely adduce the
fact blazoned upon that treaty as an illustration of
the belief entertained for centuries before as
to the extent and boundaries of the Danish

kingdom. So far from the Treaty of Vienna
furnishing an insulated argument to the oppo-
nents of the Germanic expedition, it is merely
the confirmation of the truth proclaimed by History,
by Time, and by Language. Yes, we maintain it—
even by Language. For, although the entire popula-
tion of Denmark may be correctly described as of
Teutonic origin, they are nevertheless in dialect, in
manner', and in customs, of four distinct and dis-
tinguishable stocks. First, the pure Danes in Jut-
land, Schleswig, and the archipelago of Denmark
Proper (including the islands of Zealand, Funen,
Laaland, Falster, Moen, Langeland, Bornholm,
&c.), where the inhabitants speak a modern-
ized form of the old Norse language. Se-
condly, the Angles, who are found principally on
the Baltic coast of Schleswig. Thirdly, the Frisians,
in the islands of Schleswig, such as Heligoland.
And, fourthly, the Germans, who inhabit the federa-

tive duchy of Holstein. Such are the arguments
of dialect, manners, and customs. Yet it is in defiance
of them all that the Germanic claim is now instituted
for the absorption of Schleswig in the Confederation
The reason of this anxiety for its absorption is suffi-
ciently clear, when we remember that out of the
Danish population of 2,008,305 souls, the inhabitants
of Schleswig, amounting to just 340,121 in-
dividuals, possess the most fruitful land in
the whole of the kingdom of Denmark. For the
gratification of this lawless lust of incorporation, the
confederate princes of Germany are violating all the
laws of nations, of nature, and of GOD. The thun-
derbolt of retribution must ultimately fall upon
their heads, for crime ir:eets always with its expiation,
no matter whether the victim of Divine Justice be a
Homicide in a Diadem or a Robber in Purple.

So long as the proceedings in the very extraordi-
nary case of GEILS v. GEILS were sub judice, we
cautiously abstained from noticing in any manner the
allegations brought forward on either side, or the
scenes which took place in court during the pro-
tracted arguments of the learned civilians who con-
ducted the case for the several parties. Judgment
has, however, at length been pronounced, and every
circumstance connected with the transaction is fairly
before the public. There is now no danger that the
course of justice may be impeded, or the mind of the
presiding judge influenced by any allusion to the
case.
eHis decision has been given, it cannot be re-
called or varied in the slightest particular,
awrihdieh thehe
conclusions,
wgtrahoseu nisidtansfiteuetnhocefertd:,inl the reasons by
subject, the mode of its coming to such
law applicable to the
administration,athelllegaintdimtabtee
peculiar practice of the court,
subjects for comment, and (where they
or ye a foundn c e o
erroneous o
to r
o w defective)desiro ftoorincrease reproof andz,llied reprehension.ayanna
the parties who have been so long
painfully
before the public, and we should avoid the slightestt
allusion to the case but that it appears to us
nish the strongest illustration of the abuses° fur-
defects of the present system, and to point out andthe
changes that are so urgently demanded. We should,
therefore, be wanting in our duty as public journalists
if we shrunk from the task, however irksome and
unpleasant it might prove, or neglected, to insist upon
the necessity of a revision of the ecclesiastical code, a
new constitution of the tribunals by which it is
administered, and the speedy introduction of efficient
and comprehensive measures of reform for that

purpose.
continued to reside together
until
The parties in the present case were married in
October, 1838.
until September, 1845,
d
~Mrs. children
GE(ldLsa u gwhittehrdsr)e
withdrew
refused to accede
society and protection, and having
were born.
which period four
herself from
frlon the
inhelarttherua month
band,,
toshi:requestto as
return,p n:rethesiliy as
th to his
possibleestablishment,
by mr.
u suit was instituted
G ELLS for a restitution of
conjugal rights, and shortly
afterwards one by Mrs. GEM for a divorce on three
separate and. distinct grounds—viz.,-for cruelty, for
ar MS
adultery, and for another and by far more atrocious
provocation, which, if well founded, must have con•
vetted every feeling of love and affection that might
previously have existed into the deepest disgust and
abhorrence.
The parties were possessed of ample
funds on both sides; there was, therefore; full scope
for their respective professional advisers, and '