The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-03 00:00:00

THE SUN,

Denmark and the Germanic Confederation may
be now regarded as virtually brought to a conclusion,
through the instrumentality of the chief of the Great
Powers of Christendom. According to the decision
of the important document already reverted to as
having been signed last evening, under the supervi•
sion of Viscount PALMERSTON, the conflicting
claims of the Duchies have been reconciled,

and the integrity of the dominions subject

to the sway of the Danish Monarchy boldly and de-
finitively indicated. That integrity, it will be re-
membered by our readers, we have repeatedly shown
to be jeopardised by the infamous egressions of Prus-
sia and her political accomplices in the Confederation,
our arguments on this head having been reiterated
during upwards of the thirty months last past succes-
ively. Throughout that period we have vigilantly
watched the movements of the opposing armies as
they have oscillated between the northern and southern
boundaries of Jutland, maintaining, meanwhile, an un-
interrupted scrutiny of the course pursued by the
antagonistic diplomatists. Be it observed, moreover,
to the honour of our Liberal contemporaries, scarcely
a journal amongst the metropolitan or provincial press
has failed to advocate the cause of justice, identified,
as it was, with the rights of Denmark, or to contemn
the unrighteous proceedings of the Berlin Govern-
ment and of the other Cabinets implicated with the
Schleswig-Holstein insurgents. None, in fact, of the
Liberal journalists of England have sympathised
with the lawless assailants of an ancient and
independent sovereignty like Denmark, except
such as have been bitten with the phobia
of the arbitration movement, and whose judg-
ments have consequently been distorted by prejudice.
For ourselves, we have preserved throughout a scru-
pulous regard to the logic of facts, those facts being
furnished by the pages of history and by the usages
recognized from an almost immemorial antiquity.
Foremost among those facts is the circumstance that
the southern boundary of the peninsular dominion
of Denmark has for centuries, from the days of the
eXiARS downwards, been that river Eyder, which
the Prussia❑ soldiers have dared to cross in their
most flagitious movement of aggression, and over
which they are now being driven back ignominiously
by the terrors of Danish patriotism. The existence,
during so many bygone ages up to the present pe-
riod, of the distinct line of demarcation between the
Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein—between the
Scandinavian Duchy of Schleswig and the Germanic
Duchy of Holstein, a line of demarcation indicating
at once the boundary of the Danish territories and of
the territories of the Confederation—we have illustrated
(so often as to have rendered the quotation hack-
neyed) by the motto inscribed on the oldest maps of
Europe, " Eydera Germani terminus imperil." At
that river we have shown that the dominion of Ger-
many has ceased. From the Eyder northwards, we
have seen that the Jutland peninsula has always ap-
pertained to the Danish sovereignty. We have re-
cognized the fact proclaimed by the voice of history,
that Schleswig itself has for many long centuries
been not an appendage of Denmark, but an
integral rortion of its dominions. Knowing these
things, our judgment has revolted from anything like
respect for the conduct of the Prussian Government
in aiding and abetting the insurgents of the Duchy
of Holstein in striving to effect their association with
their Scandanavian neighbours. The adventure has
glared upon us from first to last in its full atrocity as
a mendacious endeavour to commence the dismember-
ment of the Danish dominions.

A very simple comparison will tend to illus-

trate more clearly than any more serious argu-
ment the gross injustice and crass stupidity of
those proceeding; on the part of the Confederation.
The conduct of Prussia and its associates, in joining
with Holstein in its effort to unite itself with
Schleswig, and thereby to rend that Duchy from the
dominions of the King of DENMARK, is as
monstrous and unjustifiable as if France were to con-
spire with the Channel Islands in en endeavour to
seize the Isle of Wight, and thereby to violate the
integrity of the dominions of Great Britain. Jersey,
Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark belong to England
after the same fashion that Holstein belongs to Den-
mark. Schleswig at the same time is as completely
an integral portion of Denmark as the Isle of Wight
is an integral portion of England. Consequently,
when the Holsteiners are struggling to wrest Schles-
wig from its intimate union with Denmark, aided in
that struggle by the military force of the German
Confederation, it is as shameless and detestable a
violation of all justice as if the inhabitants of the
Channel Islands were struggling to wrest the Isle of
Wight from its intimate union with England, aided
in that struggle by the military force of the French
Republic.

Recognising thus clearly the goodness of the claims
of Denmark, we exult in the present approximation
.of its difficulties to a satisfactory settlement, partly
through the valour of its patriotic soldiers, partly
through the adroitness of the European Plenipoten-
tiaries, almost simultaneously by the signing of the
protocol in London and the gaining of the victory at
Idstedt. Should no unforeseen calamity arise as an
obstruction, the Schleswig-Holstein question will
very soon be resolved into a permanent reconciliation
of the belligerents; while England, Russia, France,
and Sweden will stand pledged to maintain the inte-
grity of the Danish sovereignty.

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. BUMBLE,
squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, " the
law is a ass—a idiot. If that is the eye of the law,
the law is a bachelor, and the worst I wish the law
is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by
experience." Mr. BUMBLE was right, the law is in
many respects " a ass—a idiot,", and in none is
its deficiency more painfully apparent than in the
law of husband and wife. A case was decided on
Tuesday in the House of Lords, on appeal from the
Court of Session in Scotland, that affords the most
powerful illustration of is gross absurdity, and tempts
us to wish, with the " parochial functionary," that so
far as the question of legal cruelty be concerned
"the eye of the law may be opened by experience
by experience."

The case was one in which the husband appealed
against the decree of the Scotch Court which pro-,
nounced that his wife was entitled to a separation
a menses et thoro, and to a suitable alimony. This
judgment was founded on a course of conduct on the
part of the appellant to his unfortunate wife, which,
in whatever light it might be regarded by " the eye
of the law," could only appear to " the eye of reason.
and common sense " as being infinitely more pair, ful
and heartrending to the respondent than
such a degree of " personal violence," or
" threat of personal violence as would
undoubtelly constitute an act, or acts "legal
cruelty" sufficient to warre:at a partial divorce from
bed and board, and to afr.ord the deeply-injured lady
a perfect right to w;:chdraw herself from under the
roof where she had, been treated with such gross con-
tumely by the 'man, who at the altar of GOD had
vowed " to 10,0 and cherish her until death did them
part."

Wi!chout entering into the statements contained
in " the summons of separation," or the evidence by
which they might have been sustained, the letters of
the appellant himself distinctly. proved that he bad vo-
luntarily and for ever relinquished all the rights and
husband.worifa by
privileges of
obediencea rg e the duties a
ahusband, u 3 refused to dis-
charge
exact the
compellingbehe to remain
where her friends and relation her
s were forbidden to
come—where he treated her, to use
his own words,
' with "an involuntary avoidance and
coldness"—Rorer,
he was aware that " she neither was nor could be
happy." He would refuse his assent to a formal
separation, although he acknowledged " that they
were as much separated as if she were living under
the roof of her parents"—that they had " separate
apartments, separate feelings, and (he might add)
separate interests." Under such circumstances there
could surely be no difficulty in assenting to his own
proposition that such a separation was " far more dis-
creditable than if distance were added." Ho would
keep her under his own roof, and forbid her to reside,
we will not say where she might have a prospect of
happiness, for of that there could be but little pro-
bability under any possible circumstances, but where
her misery might be in some degree alleviated—
where
other friends might in some degree compensate
for the cold-blooded negligence of one who should
b:; " all the world to Ler," ttlid where she miLL Ue ,
spared the " scorn, contempt, or pity" of her very 1
servants, some of which feelings must be excited at