The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-02 00:00:00

lEON-CASED PRIGATBS.

We are only at the beginning of the commotion
which our French neighbours have caused by the
production of the Gloire. They have a right to
make a mystery of her. She has already upset all
our ideas of marine architecture, and she is likely
enough to revolutionise all our theories of for tialea-
tion. The wooden walls of Old England are get-
ting out of favour, despite the gallant stand made
in their defence by Sir Howard Douglas. The very
conception of a ship is radically changed. It is
doubted if a frigate should have any masts or sails,
or any kind of projection above her (It dr. There
should be no difference between her stein and hcr
stern, while her sides should incline inwards at an
angle of 45 degrees. Instead of sitting the waters
" like a thing of life," she would be more like a
small sandbank at half-tide, and one of the new
models, indeed, is to be painted a light gray colour,
so as to become utterly invisible, like a Volunteer
Rifleman. In fact, the same theory has been ap-
plied to the art of war both by land and sea. The
one great object is to project a bullet against am
enemy from the longest distance and with the
greatest certainty. On land we insure these con-
ditions by the use of a pattern musket and an un-
distinguishable uniform; at sea we try to compass
the same endsby rifled cannon and iron armour. As
a ship cannot be exactly hidden, like a sharp-
shooter, she must be protected against shot, and be
enabled to defy the bullets which she cannot evade.
All the poetry of the old idea is lost. A ship is
now regarded as nothing more nor less than a mani-
fold gun-carriage—a floating battery, in short. For
her sails and sailors she will have stokers and
steam, for seamen she will have gunners, and the
only remaining question is how to shield these
gunners from the broadsides of the enemy. This
is what the French have done by plating the
vessel's sides with iron, so that, at length, there
appears a powerful battery, not, indeed, impreg-
nable, but nearly so ; not altogether seaworthy,
but able to make short cruises in fair weather at
great speed ; not a miracle of success, but a won-
derful advance on any fabric launched before.
The Warrior probably surpasses the Gloire,
but the Gloire led the way. As to the objections
urged against the new system, they acquire their
force only from a confusion of propositions. There
are very many duties now discharged by our frigates
which neither the Gloire nor the Warrior could
perform ; but that would not hinder either of these
vessels from blowing a wooden frigate out of.the
water under conditions of highly probable oc-
currence.

But now there comes another extraordinary
announcement. I f all tales are true, the Allies might
have brought the Russian War to a close in a very
short time, and at a very small cost, by the aid of
these two iron frigates alone. The Gloire might
have steamed into the harbour of Sebastopol in the
teeth of its batteries,and bombarded the Arsenal at
leisure ; the Warrior might have gone into Cronstadt
with equal impunity, and worked its will with the
fortifications around. To bring the theory home to
us,we are told that an iron-cased frigate might laugh
at the future fortifications of Portsmouth ; steam in
contemptuous silence by the sea batteries at Spit-
head, run into the middle of the harbour, anchor
there, and set our dockyards in flames before an hour
was over. Of course, what could be done at Ports-
mouth could be done anywhere else ; so that, if the
Gloire is really and truly rn invention, stone walls
have been superseded as fairly as wooden walls—the
theory, we suppose, being this, that, considering the
size of the vessel, the speed of its motion, and the
efficacy of its defensive armour, no stationary bat-
teries, however formidable, could be relied upon for
doing much injury to such a target. It is only
under very special conditions, and after repeated
shots, that strong iron plates can be pierced by can-
non, whereas an iron cased frigate steaming at full
speed would give no such opportunity to an enemy's
cannoneers. Mr. Fergusscn, indeed, said long ago
that steam alone, apart from armour, would almost
suffice to give a vessel this impunity. Now, how-
ever, we have the iron plating too, and how, then,
can shore batteries be expected todamagean object
which, besides being so hard to hit, is harder still
to injure ? Could not a Gloire or a Warrior run
the gauntlet through a mile or two of forts ? She
would only be ten minutes about it.
These speculations not only appear plausible, but
to some extent are probably sound. There are two
arguments, however, to be heard in reply. When
it is said that a good iron-cased frigate will steam
at the rate of twelve miles an hour, this not only
presumes moderate weather, but a fair course and
an open channel. Such channels are not often
found in the approaches to shore fortifications.
Rarely does a fleet engage in shoal waters without
getting a vessel or two aground, and a frigate
aground would be a frigate lost. The only casualty
of our navy in the whole Crimean War occurred in.
this very manner, and the same thing happened to
our gunboats in the Peiho. In short, it is the com-
monest of all accidents in such or erations, and the
greater the speed and tonnage of the vessel the
more fatal would be the risk. If an iron-cased.
frigate were threading a narrow and unknown
channel she would hardly go at twelve miles an
hour, or, if she did, would soon be hard and fast on
a shoal. Moreover, if she is to do any mischief
herself she must become stationary somewhere, and
then she would be a fiir mark for guns. It will be
asked, however, what harm this would do her,
assuming her armour to be proof. The answer is,
that she has a weak point in her decks. Sir
Howard Douglas has remarked that the fire of a
shore battery upon a vessel within short range
would be equivalent to a vertical fire, would strike
the ship's decks, pierce them, and either silence her
or send her to the 'bottom. Similarly, it is alleged
that a heavy shell falling from a great height at a
long range would sink almost anything afloat. The
argument, in fact, comes to this—that a vessel
armed only at the sides must be attacked from
above, and that, though she might be 'invulnerable
to cannon, she could be destroyed by mortars.
Either the channels along which an attacking vessel.
must necessarily move might be covered by flights
of shells, or shells might be dropped upon her decks
as soon as she took up her position.
We will not inquire at present whether it would
be impossible to make the decks as well as the sides
of a vessel shot-proof, but it is clear that the danger
here indicated could be met by providing a recep-
tion for an enemy in the centre of a harbour as
well as in its approaches. If a vessel is to
steam right into a port, she will, of course, be safe
so long as the guns of the port bear outwards, but
if such a contingency is provided against by
turning some of the guns inwards, she would,
unless she were impregnable, be caught in a trap.
There is always the chance, too, of her never
reaching the scene of action at all. When we
argue that an iron-cased frigate might have gone
into Sebastopol or Cronstadt, it may be replied that
an iron-cased frigate would stand a very poor
chance of ever getting to the Black Sea or Baltic.
Such craft are rather batteries than cruisers—
moveable on the water under certain conditions
of weather, but not to be 'handled like a ship.
They are not always to be trusted even in the
narrow seas ; what if they were sent on distant
voyages, and into perilous waters ? How would
they be likely to fare where even light corvettes
and nimble gunboats get aground ? There is
something in all this, but be it remembered that
iron sides are "in their infancy." Twelve months
ago we should not have believed in a Gloire; in
another year we may see the Gloire surpassed—lt
is to be hoped in our own dockyards—by a
vessieti
no less seaworthy than strong. Depend
we are only feeling the first effects of
h'
of
itufhP,e:enneio
invention, but it is an invention h
but look to our own interests, can never operate to
our harm.—Times.
w

stoppagethe amount
olUrnrt.
This failure, which will not affect
G. AAarmv jacneds, kin2ctsn::3
ofh abouht a
ere, ho,aoooooccured
through heavy losses, principally
we.nitthio,nliathhileitiesto
in which a considerable fall has taken place
ilnaotuelltalye.sian silk,
The Lords Justices yesterday reversed the de-
cision of the Commissioner in Bankruptcy, in the case of
Mr. Mortimore, tanner, of Andover. The winding up will
therefore take place under the Private Arrangement Act,
instead of in the open court. Although the former course
had met with the concurrence of nine-tenths of the credi-
tors, who signified their acceptance of a composition of 10s.
in the pound, the commissioner had ruled that it could not
be permitted, his belief being that Mr. Mortimore was
aware of his own insolvency as far back as 1857.

Why do the pipes burst ? Simply in conformity
with a law of nature, whereby water frozen occupies a
larger bulk than water in the state of liquid, and if con-
fined in the liquid state and then frozen, it will burst the
vessel which contains it. It is this process that bards
rocks, and breaks down mountains, and pulverises the clay
soil of the farmer, and bursts metallic pipes. Take an En-
field rifle barrel, stop up the vent or touch-hole, place it verti-
cally, and fill it with water on a frosty night. As the water
freezes it will flow over at the top and cover the outside
with ice, and the barrel will remain uninjured. But if,
after filling with water, a metallic plug be screwed fast
into the muzzle, the result will be that the barrel will burst,
and most probably along the curve of the grooves or thinnest
section. If an old "Brown Bess" be treated in the same
mode, it also will burst, and probably along the course of
the weld or junction, commonly the weakest part. The
cause of bursting is, that the water is confined and has no
room for expansion. If the lead pipes commonly used for
water be made of pure soft lead they may possibly streich
and yield to the expansion without bursting, but
rere
be an ordinary solder joint made of brittle metal, wifee p
bably the burst will take place.—Once a Week.
•

...... ilbat..w...

?NMARK AND PRUSSIA.

fie foil owing is the diplomatic correspondence
relating t' 3 the dispute between Denmark and Ger-
many which has lately passed between the British
And = Prussian Governments :

I .011 D 13 LOOMFIELD TO BARON SCHLEINITZ.
October, 1860.
The D anish Government being sincerely desirous
a gutting an end to the controversy which has un-
fortune tely so long existed between Denmark and
the German Confederation relative to the Duchy of
Nolstein, has determined on making an effort to
bring about this desirable result.
The Danish Government is convinced that it
iwauld be useless to endeavour, under present cir-
cumstances, and with the agitation which exists in
the public mind in Holstein, to settle at once and
definitively the constitutional position which that
Duchy is to hold in the monarchy, and that it is
therefore necessary to prepare the way for a defini-
tive arrangement by one of a temporary nature,
which would give time for calm reflection and dis-
cussion between the two parties more immediately
interested--viz., the provincial States of Holstein
and the Danish Government.
For this purpose the Danish Government is pre-
pared to adopt the following modifications in the
existing state of things. _ _ _

The consultative vote accorded to the Holstein
States by the second paragraph of the Royal patent
of the 23d of Sept., 1859, to be changed to a delibe-
rative one, so that no law shall have force in Hol-
stein, either in regard to persons or property, with-
out the approbation of the States of this duchy. It
is to be hoped that the common interests of the
Bigsraad and the States of Holstein may produce
an understanding between them on matters sub-
mitted to their deliberation ; but if, notwithstand-
ing the repeated efforts of the Government, dis-
agreements should still continue to prevail between
the two assemblies on matters of two much import-
ance to be postponed to a subsequent period, the
Danish Government engages not to give effect to
the measure, in that part of the monarchy the
assembly of which shall have rejected it, and to
confine its operation to the part of the monarchy
whose assembly has accepted it.
In order to bring about an understanding be-
tween the contending opinions of the two assem-
blies it might be necessary, perhaps, to adopt
measures of a special character (such, for instance,
as the nomination of a commission of equal numbers
from both assemblies); but, without entering at
present into details on this point, it may observed
that the Danish Government will do nothing which
will interfere with the liberty of decision accorded
to each assembly.

With reference to financial arrangements, the
amount which the special finances of Holstein will
have to contribute to the common expenses of the
monarchy will be fixed, once for all, at 850,000
rigs dollars, which is the average sum paid by that
duchy on a calculation of the last six years. As
long as no augmentation of this sum is necessary,
the Holstein States will exercise no control over
its employment ; but, should the exigencies of the
State require any additional resources, the aug-
mentation of the sum fixed can only be imposed oa
the finances of Holstein by Royal ordinance, after
the free consent of the States has been given.
The Prussian Government will doubtless recog-
nize in the above proposals the spirit of conciliation
by which that of Denmark is animated. If these
arrangements are carried into effect the States of
Holstein will, in point of fact, exercise the same
control over measures affecting their duchy as the
Rigsraad possesses over those intended for the other
parts of the monarchy, and it is therefore hoped
that when the plan is submitted to the Diet by the
Danish representative at Frankfort, it may receive
the support of Prussia. But the Danish Govern-
ment
is prepared to go still further in the way of
conciliation. They cannot, indeed, nor will they,
admit any right on the part of Germany to inter-
fere in the affairs of Schleswig, and whatever con-
cessions are made to this duchy, must be understood
as emanating solely from the free will of the
Danish Government, and not construed into an ad-
mission of the authority of the Confederation of
Schleswig.

As a proof of the friendly sentiments by which
they are animated, and of their desire to remedy
some of the evils complained of, the Danish Govern-
ment would be prepared, on the consent of the Diet
being given to the temporary arrangement for Hol-
stein above alluded to, to adopt the following modi-
fications in the laws at present existing in Schleswig:
1. The religious ceremony of confirmation to be
performed in the language selected by the individual.
2. Freedom of private instruction conditional on
passing the usual public examinations.

3. Complete amnesty for political offences and
re-establishment of attainted individuals in their
political rights.

4. Freedom of meeting and association between
Schleswigers and Holsteiners for non-political pur-
poses, and provided no such designation as " Schles-
wig-Holstein" is attached to the society.
Such are some of the measures which the Danish
Government would be at once disposed to adopt, and
more might possibly be done later. It is submitted
to the Prussian. Government whether there is not
sufficient here to pave the way to a better under-
standing between Germany and Denmark, and whe-
ther it would not he wise on the part of the former,
in the present critical state of Europe, to take ad-
vantage of the conciliatory sentiments prevailing
in Denmark for bringing these long-pending dis-
putes to a termination.

BARON SCEILEINITZ TO COUNT BERNSTORFF.
Nov. 8, 1860.

I have the honour to forward herewith to your
Excellency copy of a memorandum which Lord
Bloomfield, by the instructions of his Government,
has confidentially communicated to me, in order to
make known to us the steps which the Danish Go-
vernment intends to take for arranging the differ-
ences in the matter of the constitution of Holstein.
According to that memorandum the Danish Cabi-
net now wibhes to make it understood that under
present circumstances, and with the excited state of
feeling prevailing in Holstein, it is at the present
time impossible to settle definitively the position
to be given to the duchy in regard to the whole
constitution of the monarchy. A mere provisional
arrangement rather is to be made, which may
leave the necessary room for a peaceable transac-
tion between the Governments and the States.
Your Excellency will readily understand how
painfully we must have been' surprised by this in-
formation.

Nine years have already passed away 'without
result since the promise of a Constitution made in
1851.52. When a year ago the Federal Assembly
would] have at length proceeded to measures of
execution,..thre'Royal Ducal Government could not
ward off this menacing step but by the promise
that 'negotiations should forthwith be opened with
the representatives of the country. This year also
is gone by without anything being done, and now
at the close it is plainly asserted that the settle-
ment of the affair is made impossible by the ex-
cited state of public opinion.
If such excitement really exists, the cause of it
is the fact that the promises made still await their
full hneia ; on the other hand, the most urgent
necessity is that this matter should be brought to
a final issue at; speedily as possible.
In what way does the Government propose to
arrange matters in the interim ? Its propositions
in this respect are not less unsatisfactory.
It is well known that the Confederation, by its
resolution of the Bth of March last, declared it to
be indispensably necessarythat in the interval tak-
ing place till the position of the constitution should
be definitively re-established, all proposed laws for
the common affairs of the monarchy, which are
brought before the Council of the kingdom (Reichs-
rath) shall, in so far as they may be of validity in
Holstein, be also laid before the States of Holstein,
and that no laws relative to common affairs, especi-
ally financial affairs, may be made current in Rol-
stein, until it has received the assent of the states
of the duchy.

The present propositions of Penni-irk are very
far from i!oroing up to the above resolution. .
It is trtic that in the Cagle of laws affecting the

11 rights of persons and property the right of with-
holding assent is to be granted to the States; but in
financial matters—and it is these par ticul rly that
are most important—they will have no v ce. The
Government will of its own full power determine
the aversum which would be contribu • ble by the
duchy in a certain degree as a tribute for the com-
mon wants of the monarchy. It will fix the amount
of this aversum in proportion to the sums which it
has levied in the last 6 years; in this case, also, with-
out the assent of the States, and to an amount which
has already been the subject of many complaints.
No voice is to be allowed to- the States of Holstein
in regard to the appropriation of this aversum. It
is only in the case of an increase thereof being de-
manded that their assent will be asked for.
It is evident that the position of Holstein accord-
ing to this arrangement would relatively be very
unequal to that of the other parts of the monarchy
which are represented in the council of the king-
dom. For the council would consider and would
have a deciding vote both on the tax and its appro-
priation, and it is clear that there is an imminent
and justifiable apprehension that under such cir-
cumstances the wealth of the duchy would have to
subserve not so much its own interests as those of
the other part of the territory.
Hence it appears evident that, in assuming that
the proposals would confer upon the States of Hol-
stein, in respect of the affairs appertaining to their
Duchy, practically the exercise of the same control
over them as that which belongs to the Reichsrath
(council) over the affairs of the other portions of
the Monarchy, the memorandum of the London
Cabinet, in its hope that the propositions of Den-
mark may find approval, is building upon an un-
founded hypothesis.
We have already frequently pointed out how con-
trary to justice it is altogether that the Danish Go-
vernment should continue to retainin force the
whole constitution of the State, especially the
council of the kingdom, which it has itself origi-
nated after it has been compelled to admit that by
right this does not subsist as regards Holstein. The
council should constitute a common representation
for common interests. It has ceaeed to be a common
representation since Holstein had been separated
from it ; nevertheless, it decides upon matters com-
mon to all, and therefore upon the weightiest inte-
rests of the Duchy of Holstein, which is not repre-
sented by it. How irregular this is, how necessarily
the abolition of the Reichsrath was altogether im-
plied in the separation of Holstein, is at once evi-
dent to•an unprejudiced eye. But the adoption of
the present propositions of Denmark would impli-
citly include, at the same time, an approval of the
continuance of the Reichsrath, and it is not easy to
foresee when the interim state, founded in this way,
will be brought to a close.

But, however the propositions of Denmark may
be considered, the Confederation, at all events,
cannot, as the London Cabinet appears to assume,
feel itself empowered to covenant with Denmark on
the settlement of affairs upon this basis, and
Prussia also is therefore not in a position to act
in this sense at Frankfort in accordance with the
wish of Lord John Russell. The question here is
that of the rights of the States, which it is not
in the province of the Confederation to settle ;
upon this the Danish Government may enter
into negotiations with the States. If it have their
assent, there will not be anything to say against
it on the part of the Confederation. But the
propositions do not appear to be of a nature such
that the Confederation could use its influence with
the States for their assent, and it could not ad-
mit the validity of any arrangement which the
Government might make in accordance with these
propositions so long as the assent of the States
should be withheld from them.

As your Excellency will see by the conclusion
of the memorandum, the Copenhagen Cabinet thinks
it may further an understanding upon the question
of Holstein by the offer of certain concessions in
respect of Schleswig.
We may abstain from going into a detailed consi-
deration of the value of the measures put forward
because the hypothesis with which they were,
as an esseStial condition, connected is, we are con-
vinced, entirely unacceptable by the Confederation.
No right of intervention in the affairs of Schleswig
is thereby granted to the German Confederation.
All concessions to be made to that Duchy are exclu-
sively understood as emanating from the free will of
the Government of Denmark, and are not inter-
preted as an admission of the authority of the Con-
federation in reference to Schleswig. To this the
Confederation ►ill never agree.
It is certainly quite just, and this we have always
admitted, that the Duchy of Schleswig does not ap-
pertain to the body of the German Confederation,
and thus it is so far not subject to the authority of
the Confederation. But it is nevertheless quite in
consistency with this that the King of Denmark, as
Duke of Schleswig, has contracted, in behalf of the
equalisation of the debated claims of Holstein, cer-
tain international obligations towards the German
Con federation in respect of Schleswig, and is bound
to fulfil them.

In regard to this I may refer to our detailed me-
morandum of last June, which at the time your
Excellency also brought to the knowledge of the
English Cabinet.

The spirit.in which England has so frequently
in other places laid its weight in the scale, where
it was available in obtaining for people liberties
agaidst their Governments, which until then did
not belong to them according to law, and the
principle respecting national rights which recently
dictated the despatch of Lord J. Russell on the
27th of last October to Sir J. Hudson, at Turin,
will not permit us to doubt that in the case
between Denmark and Germany, in which the
question now is to defend the well grounded and
documented liberties of the States, Great Britain
will have no hesitation to use its whole influence
with the Cabinet of Copenhagen for obtaining what
is right. .

Your Excellency is authorised to acquaint Lord
J. Russell with the contents of this despatch in re-
ply to the memorandum communicated to us.

S CHLEIII ITZ.

His Excellency Count Bernstorff.

LORD I. RUSSELL TO MR. LOWTHER.
London, Dec. 8, 1860.

Sir,—Her Majesty's Government have carefully
considered the despatch of Baron Schleinitz to
Count Bernstorff of the Bth ult., of which a copy is
herewithtnelosed for your information.
The first remark I would make upon that de-
spatch is, that the Prussian Government appear to
misunderstand the position of her Majesty's Go-
vernment in respect to the memorandum delivered
to the Court of Berlin. The propositions therein
contained are the propositions of the Government
of Denmark. Her Majesty's Government have not
recommended them for acceptance ; they have not
even said that they might form the basis of a set-
tlement; all that they have 'saki is that they hoped
an opening for negotiations might be found in them.
A further remark I have to make is, that her
Majesty's Government by no means understood that
the Holstein contribution proposed by Denmark
was to be taken from Holstein without any power
of inquiry as to its appropriation. On the contrary,
they would have thought a demand on the part of
Prussia that the contribution of Denmark to gene-
ral and common expenses should be also a fixed
sum, and that the States of Holhstsertanshoupldenejr fooy,
to an equal degree with the Rcieth a power
examining the appropriation of this sum, and to
remonstrate against any malversation, would be a
demand quite in conformity'with the Danish memo-
randum.

It is obvious that Denmark, being an independent
State, must maintain its monarchy, its army, and
its navy, in a manner befitting its rank and position
as such. Nor can it be in principle unreasonable
to ask that the States of Holstein and Lauenberg
should contribute to maintain the monarchy, the
army, and navy of the kingdom.
Having endeavoured to remove this misappre-
hension, I will proceed to define the position of
Denmark and that of her Majesty's Government in
relation to this correspondence.
It has been the desire of Denmark to show a
Willingness to conciliate, without admitting a right

of intervention in the affairs of Schleswig on the
part of the German Confederation.
The Danish Government having argued that, as
Great Britain could not be suspected of claiming
any such right, it was more consistent with the
position of Denmark to convey to Prussia their
intentions in regard to Schleswig through the
official medium of Great Britain, and if possible
with her support, than to make concessions directly
to the German Confederation.

The British Government on their part have not
adopted the Danish propositions as their own, nor
recommended them to the naked acceptance of the
Prince Regent of Prussia and the German Confe-
deration. But they confess that they take an in-
terest in the integrity of the Danish monarchy, and
should be sorry to see the force of Denmark, which
is not considerable, weakened or impaired.
With this view her Majesty's Government would
have been glad to see all parts of the Danish mo-
narchy fairly represented in a Parliament at Co-
penhagen. If that is unattainable; they would have
been glad to see Denmark and Holstein assume an
equitable portion of the burdens necessary to be borne
for the maintenance of Danish independence.
The despatch of Baron Schleinitz of the Bth of
November appears to reject this scheme of settle-
ment, just as the former scheme of equal represen-
tation had been before thrown aside.

There remains to be considered the position o.
Denmark as regards the German Confederation.

The Duchies of Holstein and Lauenberg are
German duchies, and farm part of the German
Confederation. The laws of the German Confede-
ration are applicable to them, and it will be for the
Diet and the Duke of Holstein Lauenburg to de-
cide together what those laws require, and what
should be their future destiny.
But with regard to the Duchy of Schleswig it is
a Danish duchy. The memorandum of the Court
of Berlin communicated to her Majesty's Govern-
ment on the Bth of July last, in giving the sub-
stance of an annex to the Vienna despatch of the
26th of December, 1851, says :

" The Imperial Government fully acknowledges
the competence of the King to annul the former
union between Schleswig and Holstein as relates
to administration and justice, and also this prin-
ciple that the authority of the federal law, and
therefore also the competence of the Confederation
which arises from that alone, cannot have any
force over a land not appertaining to the Confede-
ration, and consequently not over Schleswig."
There appears here a distinct renunciation on the
part of Austria and Prussia on behalf of the Ger-
man Confederation of any competence to extend the
Federal laws over Schles wig.
Nevertheless, the Prussian Government now
claims a right to interfere in Schleswig, in virtue
of certain promises made by the King of Denmark
in 1851.

Let ns first remark the form of these promises
and then their nature.

In their form the promises of the King of Den-
mark were made in the first instance to his own
subjects ; but the despatch of the Court of Vienna
of December 6, 1831, and the reply of the Danish
Minister for Foreign Affairs, together with the
nearly simultaneous proclamation to the King of
Denmark, tend to invest these promises with the
value, though not the exact form of an engagement.
The Imperial Minister defines the meaning of the
programme of the King of Denmark, asks for " the
binding form of a declaration made at the command
of his Majesty the King," and:ends with a volun-
tary offer upon those terms to lay aside the man-
date of Austria and Prussia as representing the
German Confederation, and to provide for the
evacuation of Holstein.

On the 29th of January, 1852, the Danish Fo-
reign Minister made, ' in furtherance of the autho-
rity conferred upon me from the highest quarter,
the declaration that the King, our master, acknow-
ledges, as being in coincidence with his own, the
interpretation of the supreme intentions communi-
cated to the Courts of Berlin and Vienna, which is
given in the despatch of the Imperial Court of
Vienna of the 26th of December of last year and
the annex thereto, &c.'

Next, as to the nature of the promises made
These are :

First. The King of Denmark promises that there
should be no incorporation of the Duchy of
Schleswig with the kingdom, nor should any mea-
sure tending thereto be adopted.
Secondly. The proclamation of the 28th of
January, 1852, promises a constitutional develop.
ment of the State of Schleswig, and that the law to
be framed for that object will especially contain
the necessary provisions for procuring a perfectly
equal settlement and effectual protection to the
Danish and German nationalities in the said Duchy.
There can be no doubt, in the opinion of her
Majesty's Government, that these promises consti-
tute an engagement which his Danish Majesty is
bound in honour to fulfil. He is bound not to in-
corporate Schleswig with Denmark ; to maintain
in Schleswig representative States, and to protect
the Danish and German nationalities in the Duchy
of Schleswig.

But neither in form nor in substance, as it ap-
pears to her Majesty's Government, do these pro-
mises give a right to Austria and Prussia,
or to the German Confederation collectively, to
interefere in all the details of administration is the
Danish Duchy of Schleswig. If Schleswig were
incorporated with Denmark, if Schleswig were
deprived of its separate constitution, Germany
might claim a right to interfere. But if the regu-
lation of each church and each school in Schleswig
were to be subject of interference by the German
Confederation, it is clear that the sovereign rights
of the King of Denmark would exist only in name.
Her Majesty's Government will always, on their
part, use any influence they may possess with the
Court of Denmark to secure the protection of the
German inhabitants of Schleswig.
But when the Prussian Government refers to the
sentiments recently expressed by her Majesty's
Government in behalf of Italian nationality, the
Prussian Government must be reminded that there
are in the Duchy of Schleswig 140,000 Danes, and
that the remaining population is not purely Ger-
man'; while neither in tLe States of the Church nor
in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was there any
mixed population of any other race with Italians.
In fine, whether we regard the form of the en-
gagements taken by the King of Denmark towards
Austria, Prussia, and the German Confederation,
or -whether we regard the susceptibilities of the
Danish Government, the mixture of races in Sch-
leswig, and the just regards due to Germans and
Danes alike, her Majesty's Government are per-
suaded that there never was a question which more
imperatively demanded a temperate consideration,
or on which a beginning of strife would be more
injurious to all the interests concerned.

I am, &c.,

J. RUSSELL.

Mr. W. Lowther.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL TO MR. PAGET.
Foreign-office, Dec. 8, 1860.

Sir,—l send you a copy of a despatch from Baron
Schleinitz to Count Bernstorff, and a copy of the
answer I have given to it in a despatch to Mr.
Lowther.

You will observe that I have stated in this de-
spatch the engagements which, in the opinion of
her Majesty's Government, his Danish Majesty is
bound in honour to fulfil. " He is bound," I have
stated, " not to incorporate Schleswig with Den-
mark, to maintain in Schleswig representative
States, and to protect the German and Danish na-
tionalities in the Duchy of Schleswig."
It appears to her Majesty's Government that,
whatever may be the binding force of the engage.
ments entered into with Austria and Prussia,
the King of Denmark is bound in honour to fulfil
these conditions. He proclaimed them publicly;
he made them known not only to his subjects, but
to the representatives of foreign powers ; nor is
their fulfilment less his interest than his obliga-
tion, His German subjects in Schleswig ought to
feel that they enjoy under his rule equality of
rights with their Danish fellow-subjects. They
will then feel a loyal attachment to the Danish
monarchy, and a sincere desire to preserve it un-
impaired. If, on the contrary, the education of
their children at the common schools and their
worship at their parish church is trammelled

with vexatious regulations, and the Government
appears to be animated by a desire to depress the
nationality of subjects, of German origin, unhappy
consequences may follow. Should the German
Diet proceed to enforce its resolutions of March
last, the neighbouring Duchy of Schleswig is sure
to be the scene of agitation, perhaps of tumult and
riot, In such an emergency the King of Denmark
will feel the value of having made such concessions
to the German inhabitants of Schleswig as shall
raise him above all suspicion of bad faith and all
charges of placing an intelligent and industrious
portion of his subjects in a position of odious in-
feriority.
You will read this despatch, together with that
to Mr. Lowther, to M. Hall, and give him copies
of them.—l am, &c.,

J. RUSSELL.

Aug. B. Paget, Esq., &c.

In a second dispatch, Baron Schleinitz transmits
to Count Bernstorff a copy of Lord John Russell's
despatch to Mr. Lowther. He writes :
To our great satisfaction we have been allowed
to gather from the latest despatch of Lord John
Russell, that the Royal Government of Great
Britain did not intend to recommend the pro-
posals of the Copenhagen Cabinet for acceptance ;
nay, that it did not even wish to tender those pro-
posals as a fit basis for the settlement of the affair.

The Danish Government has offered to deter-
mine, in the fulness of its own power, a certain
sum of money annually to be paid by Holstein as a
contribution to the common expenditure of the
monarchy—that sum to be estimated according to
the rate which the duchy has been compelled to
pay during the last six years. The offer was
coupled with the condition that, as long as the
Government did not demand an increase of the
sum in question, no right should be allowed to
the Representative Assembly of Holstein
to exercise a control over the disposal of the
money. It was obvious at once that the posi-
tion of Holstein would thus become much
more unfavourable than that of the countries repre-
sented in the general Riksrath at Copenhagen, the
latter enjoying the privilege of voting each item of
the budget, and watching the rightful application
of the expenditure in every single instance.
Your Excellency will now perceive from the en-
closure that :the British Government are desir-
ous of securing for the Representative Assembly of
Holstein a right of control over the employment of
their contribution.

The British Government (Lord John Russell pro-
ceeds to say in his last despatch) would be gratified
to see every portion of the Danish monarchy ade-
quately represented in a general Parliament at
Copenhagen; or, should this be unattainable, the
kingdom, as well as the duchies, ought to be made
to contribute a proportionate share in the common
expenditure. On our part, we have not the slightest
objection to such an arrangement ; and if a contrary
inference has been drawn by Lord John Russell from
my despatch of the Bth) this can only proceed from a
misinterpretation of my views. Nor did we, as Lord
John Russell supposes, ever reject the plan of an
equal representation for the different countries. On
the contrary, we have always urged the Danish
Government to fulfil the promise that the monarchy
should be granted a constitution, bestowing an
equal amount of rights upon each of the various
countries constituting it.
We have derived particular gratification from the
concluding portion of the despatch of the Bth inst.,
in which the British Government does not hesitate
expressly to recognise the existing international
obligations of Denmark with respect to Schleswig
—obligations entered into towards the German
Confederacy, but the very existence of which has
been persistently denied by the Copenhagen Cabi-
net. It is a matter of course that these obligations
cannot be made the cause of Federal interference
with the details of the administration, and we have
never as yet claimed the right of adopting such a
course.

We are assured that the convictions so frankly
expressed by Lord John Russell concerning the
Danish obligations with reference to Schleswig
would be all the more calculated to influence the
action of the Copenhagen Cabinet if the latter had
no reason to doubt the perfectly impartial and
friendly character of the attitude of England in this
question.

I conclude with a word in reply to a remark
made by Lord John Russell towards the close of
his despatch.

If, in my despatch of the Bth of November,
reference was made to one of Lord John Russell
to Sir James Hudson, I did not in this allude to the
principles therein expressed concerning the rights
of nationalty, but rather wished to speak of the
rights of a people in opposition to those of its Go-
vernment. In these latter I could not but regard a
guarantee for England taking an interest in the
claims of the Holstein Assembly against its Go-
vernment.

Your Excellency is authorised to inform Lord
John Russell of the contents of this despatch, and
also to transmit to him the expression of our
thanks for the explanations given to us in this last
note. SCTILEINITZ.

.L.4W INTELLIGENCE, _Feb. 1.

COURT FOR DIVORCE AND MATRIMO
NIA", CAUSES.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CUBLEY V. CUBLEY AND SMITH.

This suit was instituted by Francis Cubley, pro-
prietor of the Tankard publichouse, Kennington-
road, Lambeth, for a divorce, on the ground of his
wife's adultery with the co-respondent, who had
formerly been a potman in his service. Both defen-
dants appeared, and Mrs. Cubley in her answer
pleaded cruelty on the part of the petitioner. The
case stood over from Monday, the identity of the
co-respondent not being fully established, and the
facts have been already reported in this journal.
Two witnesses were called who supplied the
deficiency, and the following evidence on the plea
of cruelty was adduced :
Alexander Ennis stated that he had been a pot-
man in the employ of the petitioner about two
years and a half ago, and lived with him about 11
or 12 months. During that period he saw Mr.
Cubley frequently illtreat his wife, and on one
occasion after having had some friends to sup
with him. When they left he heard Mrs. Cubley
scream violently, and, on going into the bar, he
saw Mr. Cubley with one hand on her neck and with
a ginger-beer bottle in his other hand. He rushed
up to hint and wrested the bottle from him. When
Mr. Cubley became calm Mrs. Cubley desired witness
to go up stairs and conceal the razors. He witnessed
several other acts of a similar character, and heard
Mr. Cubley use the most disgusting and fearful
language towards his wife. _

Coun—sol having addressed the Court,
The learned judge said he considered that the
petitioner was entitled to relief, and accordingly
granted the decree nisi, and directed that the
younger child should remain in custody of the
mother for the present, the petitioner allowing 58.
a-week for its maintenance.
Dr. Phillimore contended that the wife was not
entitled to the allowance, as well as the alimony
pendente lite, which had been ordered by the Court,
and which she would retain for three months longer.
Sir C. Cresswell agreed with the learned doctor,
and said that the respondent must make her elec-
tion between the alimony and the allowance for the
child, and counsel for the respondent decided in
favour of the former.

Dr. Phillimore, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram were
counsel for the petitioner ; Mr. Best and Mr. Pater
for the respondent, and Mr. E. Lloyd appeared for
the co-respondent.
PADMORE V. PADMORE AND TAYLOR.

This was the petition of the husband, praying for
a divorce, on the ground of the wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, and there was BO defence.
Mr. Sergeant Parry and Dr. Swabey were
counsel for the petitioner.
It appeared that the petitioner and his wife were
married at St. John's, Wapping, in 1848, and lived
together, with some interruption, until 1856, dur-
ing which period the respondent gave birth to
three children. In 1852 Mr. Padmore accepted a
situation in the commissariat department of the
English army, and went to the Crimea, where he
was absent for some time, and on his return he
resumed cohabitation with his wife at their residence
at Northampton. He subsequently went to the Cape
of Good Hope, where he remained from 1856 to 1859,
and five or six months after his return, his wife was
confined of a child, he having previously refused to
live with her, tieing aware that she was prffrinnt.
It further appeared that Mrs.Padmore was addicted
to habits of intemperance, and that a provision had

been made for her during the absence of her hus-
band by her father. The evidence fully established
the case, and the Court made a decree nisi.

Sergeant Parry and Dr. Swabey were counsel
for the petitioner.
The remaining cases were not of a character
requiring special notice.

SECONDARIES' COURT.
(Before Mr. Potter and a Special Jury.)
BREACH OF PROMISE.-KNIGHTS V. THISTLEWOOD.

This was a writ of inquiry sent down by one of
the superior courts, to assess the amount of damages
in an action *for a breach of promise of marriage,
judgment having been allowed to go by default.
Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Tindal Atkinson
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Rigby Seymour
and Mr. Best for the defendant.
Mr. Hawkins said this was a case to recover
damages for a breach of promise to marry, and he
thought that after the jury had heard the evidence
they would consider it a case deserving their most
serious consideration. The plaintiff is Miss Cathe-
rine Elizabeth Knights, a young lady of between
22 and 23, and the only daughter of an extensive
farmer at Landon Hill Hall, near Oekendon, in
Essex, and the defendant is a gentleman, about 30
years of age, of independent fortune, amounting to
£4OO or £5OO a year, living in the neighbourhood
of Regent's-park. In the course of 1859 the de-
fendant was anxious to pass some few months of
country life, and he advertised for apartments in
an Essex paper. It appeared that Mr. Knights,
the father of the plaintiff, had been suffering from
indisposition,' and was recommended company, and
seeing the advertisement, he was induced to answer
it. The parties met and came to terms, and in
September the defendant became an inmate of
Mr. Knight? house. Shortly after he had taken up
his abode, the defendant formed an attachment
with the plaintiff, Miss Knights, and on her father
being made aware of that circumstance, he declined
giving his consent until he had made some inquiries
respecting the position in life of the defendant, and
suggested that he should not continue to reside at
the farm. The defendant accordingly left, and a
correspondence ensued between them which ended
in a proposal of marriage, which was to have taken
place on the 26th of April, 1860. The defendant
did not deny having made the overture to marry,
and by not putting a plea on record virtually ad-
mitted that he had broken the promise without the
least provocation. It had been said that the de-
fendant was a man of weak intellect, but in his
epistles to the plaintiff he evinced neither proof or
sign of this; indeed he showed an unusual amount
of forethought in worldly matters. In one letter,
of Feb. 10, he wrote to plaintiff:—
, "Will your father give you £2OO, which is not an out.
of-the-way sum. Cannot do with less to provide those things
I name to you as necessary," &c.
Mr. Thistlewood was exceedingly anxious to obtain
an advance from the father for plaintiff's wedding
trousseau, and on Feb. 14 he addressed the plaintiff
as " My very dearest Kate," and said :
" I went yesterday to meet your father at Fenchurch-
street according to your request, to hear what he had to say
on your behalf. I thought his proposition very unreason-
able, such as I should never consent to. He proposed to
me to give you 801bs down. And to pay 151bs towards the
rent for 10 years, if he should live so long. Nothing less
than £2OO will be deemed sufficient and 201bs towards the
rent for 10 years and to sign a bond to that effect that is
my views on the subject if he does not consent to that
matters may remain as they are, for I consider he has it in
his power to do so. You say your mother is going to make
you a present of a tea service. If I was asked my opinion
I should prefer the breakfast service, because I have a very
nice set of china tea service myself."
Matters proceeded, more letters passed, and both
parties looked forward to the approaching happi-
ness of a wedded life. Everything was arranged
for the nuptials, as will be seen by the subjoined
letter :

" 3, Albert-street, Gloster-gate, Regent's Park.
"MY Tasty DEAREST KATE,—I should have replied yes-
terday by return of post, but had to go to London, not hear-
ing from you who was likely to be invited. I thought,
although the 26th of this month was named, that you had
not made any preparation, therefore I have not as yet or-
dered my clothes, &e. What do you think I should require
for the occasion ? I presume the coachman will have rosotts
and white gloves, and the bridesmaids • bookcays,' and also
yourself. I think you do wrong, excuse me naming it, to
ask any other clergyman if you thought of doing s 6 Ulan
Mr. Packman, because your father will have to pay him a
compliment for coming which does not rest with me only the
usual fees.' I presume you do not intend asking Captain
Simonds, for I don't want the Fishers to know all about it.
How many carriages do you intend having? Who is•to be
bridesgroom man ? It is no use you rickoning of my brother
and his wife, for they have made up their minds not to be
present. The reason I thought of advertising and going
to a farmhouse again, because I met with an accident
some few years ago, and thought it would unfit me for
marriage, that is the only cause of my being so backward,
which lam sorry such is the case. It makes me ill at
times, because it comes across my mind. If you have me
I will do all in my power to render you happy. Please to
inform me the cost of those houses you made mention of.
I shall require the proper description of the church where
the marriage is to take place, whether it goes by any
name ; I also want your Cbristian names and surname to
fill up the licence, for they won't do it unless I give them
full particulars."

Mr. Hawkins—lt had been previously arranged
that the marriage was to take place on the 26th of
April. In this letter it will be seen that he alluded
to hating met with some accident which rendered
him unfit for marriage. It had even been sug-
gested in many of his previous communications,
and he would show that it was perfect rubbish and
an idle story in order to release himself from the
promise he had made. He had mentioned the
name of a Captain Symonds in the correspondence.
That gentleman was more than 70 years of age,
and therefore a person of whom the defendant
could not have been jealous. He was a friend of
the defendant's, and he had asked him to his resi-
dence. It seems that Capt. Symonds had been
invited to the wedding, and as Mr. Thistlewood
and his wife would have left, he was asked to re-
main at Mr. Knights for a few days as society for
the father. This seemed' to have given great
offence to the defendant, and on the 17th of April
he penned the following, what he (the learned
counsel) must call a cool and heartless letter:—
" 3, Albert-street, Gloster-gate, Regent's-park.
"My dearest Kate,—l receive a letter from you this
morning., and there was one also for Captain Simonds,
wherein you state, Don't say anything to ➢Tr. Thistle-
wood about it.'

"You can ask him to come down to your house the day
before, and remain a few days, but my people must be
driven to an inn, and put to expenses. My brother and
his wife consider themselves grossly insulted, in conse-
quence of which they don't mean to come—(laughter)--
and I don't think you mean any good towards me in the
way you have acted, only for the sake of gain. Therefore
I shall decline coming also, but agree with the Fishers to
remain again. _ _ _

" With kind regards to all, and love to yourself, I remain
yours affectionately, " SAMUEL THISTLEWOOD.

" P.S.—My people and quite as respectable as Captain
Simunds."

The defendant was remonstrated with upon his
heartless conduct, but ho persevered in his inten-
tion to break off the marriage and set Mr. Knights
at defiance, so that after the licence had been
bought, the patent boots obtained, the wedding
speech prepared, the advertisement written out, to
say nothing of the wedding ring, for which he had
inclosed the jeweller's account to the plaintiff, upon
this paltry excuse he refused to fulfil his solemn
promise. The plaintiff had suffered in her health
from the treatment she had received, and he asked
the jury to give ample and substantial compensa-
tion for the loss which she had sustained.

Evidence was then called in support of the
learned counsel's statement.

The case for the defendant was that he was of
weak intellect, and not fitted to perform the duties
of married life.

The learned Secondary, in summing up, re-
marked that the letters which he should hand to
the jury bore no traces of that weakness of intellect
deposed to by tLe defendant's witnesses.
The jury, after a short deliberation, awarded the
plaintiff £6OO damages.