engagements, and consequently has no right to enforce them. I am not contending that Austria and Prussia have no right to insist on those engagements, but what I do contend is that the Federal Diet has no right to enforce them. This is a distinction which is not immaterial when we come to consider that portion of my noble Friend's speech which has been greatly misrepresented-of course, through being misunderstood by the noble Earl opposite. He represented my noble Friend as saying, that if the Federal Diet attempted to put in force by an execution any portion of the rights of the infringement of which they now complain, that it would be the duty of this country not to permit such execution, but to prohibit it by the extremest measures, even, if necessary, by war itself. I did not understand my noble Friend to hold any such language. What I understood him to say was, that if, in consequence of the difficulties now arising, Russia and France and ourselves were agreed with regard to what was right and just under the treaty, we ought not to permit the German Diet, who had nothing to do with it, and we ought not to permit Austria and Prussia, against law and right and against the opinion of the other Powers, to interfere to oppress Denmark in violation of her rights; and my noble Friend argued, I think quite correctly, that such a state of things this country could not regard with indifference. I will not go through the various phases which this question has passed through, or the various negotiations to which it has led. But what have been the real difficulties in the way of any settlement since 1851? I say the main difficulty has been the obstinate refusal of Holstein, backed up by a secret understanding with the German Powers, not to allow of any possible arrangement within the terms of the treaty. Conciliatory propositions have been made by Denmark, but they have not been discussed or entertained by Holstein -they have always been met by a fixed determination doggedly to lay down principles from which they would not depart, and which rendered any arrangement between the parties absolutely impossible. The very first suggestion was an attempt to frame a constitution common to both countries, a common representation, and a deliberative Assembly common to the whole Danish kingdom. That was absolutely refused by Holstein; and the State of Holstein informed the world that the summoning of united Parliament was a 1 proposal to which, under no circumstances, they would consent-not even under the monstrous proposition put forward by Germany, that each duchy of Holstein, Schleswig, and Lauenburg, being in the aggregate considerably less in population than the single division of Denmark Proper, should each of them have an equal numerical share in the representation of the country, and thus should not only be able to control their own affairs absolutely, but actually to exercise an administrative and controlling power over the affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark Proper. What was the next declaration of Holstein-one made only the other day? It was that the States had come to a determination that no arrangement could be accepted by Holstein which did not recognise the ancient and indissoluble union between Holstein and Schleswig. That ancient and indissoluble union, however, had been practi cally abolished for a very considerable period, and the fact had been recognised in diplomatic negotiations that the union did not subsist, and that it should not be sought to be re-established. That was one of the points of negotiation in 1851, and it has been since affirmed by all the Powers; and now it has been laid down by the States of Holstein that it was a condition without which it was impossible to come to any amicable arrangement with Denmark, under any circumstances whatever. The question, however, is not with reference to Holstein, but only with reference to Schleswig. For the King of Denmark, having found out that it was impossible, either by means of a united Parliament or by separate legislation, to come to any termis with the Assembly of Holstein, made up his mind to a great sacrifice on the part of Denmark; although he did not admit the extent to which the Federal Diet pressed their claims over the administration of Holstein, yet he consented, for the purpose of leaving them no loop-hole for any pretence of interference with the rest of his dominions, to give to Holstein all, and more than all, she had herself asked, except the union with Schleswig, and more than the German Powers, on the part of Holstein, had ever required. He gave to Holstein a complete autonomy; he gave her the administration of her own finances; he gave her exclusive legislation within her own territories; the control over her own Budget and her own laws; and though by doing so he materially weakened Denmark, yet he consented to all this, and went even beyond the demands which they points in dispute concern comparatively had any right to make for the protection trifling matters-though I do not by any of Holstein. In doing so, however, he means imply that they are unimportantwas careful to protest against the doctrine, but trifling comparatively speaking, when that beyond the duchy of Holstein the you look at the enormous and important Federal Diet had any more right to inter- consequences which would result from a fere with the affairs of Denmark than they serious misunderstanding; but they really had with those of any other Power in Eu- amount to this-that there is a very large rope. It is as Duke of Holstein that the number of Danes in some of the villages, King of Denmark is subject to the control whereas in others there is a very large of the Federal Diet. and, as regards number of Germans; and there is a good Schleswig and Denmark Proper, he is as deal of difficulty in dealing with a mixed independent a Sovereign as the Sovereign population, when the German and Danish who sits on the throne of these realms. elements are mixed up together. There As far as the Federal Diet is concerned, is a difficulty in respect to the language it clearly has no locus standi; and when all used in the schools and in churches, espethe claims of Holstein are satisfied, for the cially where the two elements are mixed Federal Diet to interfere with the other up in equal proportions. That difficulty portions of the Kingdom of Denmark, would the King of Denmark has not hitherto be a piece of gratuitous impertinence. been able satisfactorily to solve. Is it Austria and Prussia, I admit, are right in then a ground of charge against the King saying-You entered into certain arrange of Denmark (there being no other charge ments in 1851, and those arrangements against him) that he has not been able to you are bound to execute. I agree with solve that difficulty, and having expressed the noble Earl in what he said with respect his readiness to do what he could to solve to Denmark. I do not say that Denmark it in future years? Are you to compel was wrong in refusing to combine-in the him to enter into an engagement which, in settlement of their affairs and dealing with the opinion not only of the King, but of different Powers-this question of Hol- every subject he has, amounts to a violastein with the question of the management tion of the integrity of his kingdom, and a of other portions of the kingdom; but I dissolution of the monarchy? The noble do regret that of his own motion and spon- Earl's original proposition was a fair, just, taneously the King of Denmark did not and reasonable one. He repudiated the take проп himself to remove, by the power union between Schleswig and Holsteinhe possesses, any just and reasonable cause he repudiated the extravagant claims for of complaint which the inhabitants of equal representation of small minoritiesSchleswig may have against the adminis- he repudiated any right of interference with tration and the mode of Government. But regard to Schleswig except in so far as the the question is, to what extent do these engagements which the King of Denmark grievances exist what is it which has been entered into in 1851 were concerned; and complained of?-in what respect has the in regard to every point there stated, I King of Denmark violated any engage- entirely concur in the policy of the noble ments into which he may have entered? Earl. But where is it laid down in the The main engagements were two-first of engagement of 1851, or where is it conall, that Schleswig should not be incorpo- templated (although it might be contemrated into the Kingdom of Denmark; plated), that Schleswig should not be incorand secondly, that the Danish and Ger- porated with Denmark? Where is it conman subjects should be treated on an templated, or the expectation held out-on equal footing. Now, my Lords, it is the contrary, was not that expectation not to be denied that Schleswig has most carefully and sedulously negatived? been made a stalking horse for the ambi--that Schleswig should ever be separated tion of Germany. It is not to be denied that a considerable immigration of Germans has taken place into Schleswig. There is no pretence for calling it German territory, but it is a territory in which a large number of Germans have settled. Nearly half the population of 400,000 are Germans who have settled there, and they demand equal laws and equal justice. The from the Kingdom of Denmark? Holstein, according to the arrangement now proposed, is as completely separated from Denmark as Hanover at any time was separated from this country. They are bound together by no other tie than the personal tie to the Sovereign; and it is that separation probably which the noble Earl contemplated between Schleswig and Denmark Proper-namely, that Schleswig shall be as independent of Denmark and as unconnected with it as Holstein claims to be. Have not the King of Denmark and the people a right to say, "We consent, for the purpose of obviating the chance of embarrassment from claims which are very inconvenient, but which we cannot resist when you assert certain claims of the Federal Diet over Holstein, we agree it is separate almost altogether from Denmark, connected only with the personal tie of the Sovereign; but when you ask us, for no reason on earth, but because there are certain colonies of Germans who have taken possession of a large portion of this territory in Schleswig, which is a duchy that has been connected with Denmark for four hundred years, and intended by all parties studiously to be kept in connection with the Crown-when you call on us, without any ground shown or any good reason alleged-such as exists in the case of Holstein-still further to weaken the monarchy by the complete separation of Schleswig, you call on us to do that which you have no right to ask us to do." If it would be, as I believe, an act destructive) of the integrity of the monarchy of Denmark, it would also be an act no less of signal injustice and signal impolicy. The integrity of the monarchy of Deumark is of vital importance to this country. She is a small country, but with a most resolute, determined, honest, and honourable population. She is a country in which there is a large-probably the largest-amount of personal and political freedom of any country in Europe next to our own; and she is a country, moreover, which is well disposed to England. Whatever interruption of friendship there may have been from time to time, she is a country which-apart al together from that recent tie which I hope will connect us closer still-has interests and feelings and affections in common with this country. Small as she is, yet the character of her people, her naval power in comparison to her population, and her geographical position on the map of Europe, are such as to render her, in the event of a European war, no contemptible ally even to a Power so great as England. say it is policy, as well as justice, to support against any claims which ambitious nations may urge against Denmark her fair and equitable rights. It is our duty, as it is our policy, to protect her against aggression. And although God forbid that the last extremity should be forced upon YOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES.] 1 us! yet, I say, that if a question arose as to whether the Danish monarchy should be dissolved, or should lose its integrity and be frittered away-(still more that it should be placed by collateral means through indirect influences in the position of a dependency of the German Confederation)— I say there is no alternative which would not be preferable, on the part of England, than that a policy should be adopted which would lead to consequences so disastrous as the dissolution of the Danish monarchy, or its transformation into a dependency of the German Confederation. On these grounds, I deeply lament that the noble Earl has departed from his original proposition. I think he has acted without sufficient ground. I feel certain that a firm attitude held by us, in concurrence with Russia, and I believe also with France, while we have already shown the German Powers that we were not disposed to withhold from them any of their just rights, would, on this occasion, have shown them that we will not be content to allow with impunity any uncalled-for aggression on the rights of Denmark. LORD WODEHOUSE entirely agreed with what had been so well said by the noble Earl. He fully agreed with the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, that engagements, however inconvenient, ought not to be departed from; but if Denmark was bound in honour to fulfil her engagements, Germany was equally bound in honour not to put insurmountable obstacles in the way of their fulfilment. But this, he maintained, Germany had deliberately done. Those engagements, as had been fully explained to the House, were simply three :-Denmark engaged to give a common constitution to the whole of her dominions; she engaged that she would not incorporate Schleswig with the monarchy; and that she would give equal rights and protection to the German inhabitants of Schleswig. He agreed with his noble Friend that Denmark was clearly bound by these engagements. And how had the Danish Government endeavoured to fulfil them? They gave to the whole of their dominions a common constitution; but, as the noble Earl had pointed out, the State of Holstein never allowed that constitution to be carried out. They made another declaration they said that they would never consent to any arrangement which did not restore the ancient connection between Schleswig and Holstein. That was a direct repudiation of the engage 3 L ment of 1851. He agreed with the noble the success it deserved; but that did not Earl opposite in thinking that in this dis- render it necessary to make another propute Holstein had been backed up under-posal, which, if more acceptable to Gerhand by the German Powers. The German many than the last, was far less acceptable Powers said that the question as to Holstein to Denmark. That was, in fact, only was a domestic question, with which the shifting the difficulty from the one side rest of Europe had nothing to do. That to the other. The last proposal had might be so; but then they made Holstein this great objection-that it was an enthe pretext for interfering with Schleswig. couragement to Germany in her extravaHe next came to the subject of the incor- gant pretensions, while it aggravated the poration of Schleswig with the Danish difficulty of settling a question already suffiKingdom. The intention, no doubt, had ciently complicated. In defending that been that there should be a common con- proposal the noble Earl said, he believed stitution for all the different States of that the normal budget would have been Denmark; but that common constitution voted by the Estates. He was surprised, could not be carried as regarded Holstein after the temper exhibited by those bodies, and Lauenburg. Denmark, however, main- that his noble Friend should have imagined tained a common Parliament for Schleswig there was the slightest chance of such a and Denmark, which sat at Copenhagen; budget being agreed to. But, even assumand in that the Danes insisted that they ing that a minimum or peace budget would had not violated their engagements with be voted, what was likely to happen in the Germany. Denmark did not interfere event of a war? Was it likely, that aniwith the Diet of Schleswig for the separate mated with a strong German feeling, and management of local affairs. He must say, not well affected towards Denmark, these that placed as they had been in this mat- bodies would then readily vote the required ter, they had not acted unreasonably in supplies? Prussia and Austria had intiadhering to the ancient connection between mated, that if their demands were not conSchleswig and Denmark. With regard to ceded by Denmark, they might recede from the engagement of Denmark to grant equal the solemn treaty engagement into which rights and privileges to the German in- they had entered in 1852, relative to the habitants of Schleswig, he entirely con- Danish monarchy. But the instrument curred in the opinion that the Danish Go- settling the succession to the Crown of vernment had been ill-advised in not carry- Denmark had no reference to the engageing out that portion of their engagements. ments which Denmark entered into with The Danish Government had constantly the German Powers in 1850 and 1851. said, that if they made these concessions to The treaty stated that it was important for the German population of Schleswig, they the preservation of the peace of Europe would be used as a handle against Den- that the independence and integrity of the mark, and that they must therefore post- Danish monarchy should be maintained. pone making them until the agitation on When, therefore, the German Powers dethe subject was over. That, he thought, clared, that if their demands were not comwas an unwise policy. Why should the in- plied with, they would not be bound by a habitants of Schleswig be prevented from treaty into which they had entered not only petitioning, or denied the use of the Ger- with Denmark, but with England, France, man language in their churches and schools? and Russia, he must say, they cast an imThese were petty grievances for the Danish putation on their own good faith, which he Government to keep up, but real and irri- hoped was entirely undeserved. [Earl Rustating grievances for the German population SELL: They do not say so.] He admitted to suffer; and he trusted, therefore, that his noble Friend's superior means of inforthe Danish Government would lose no time mation, but he must venture to repeat his in extending to the people of Schleswig, own opinion. In the published despatches whether Germans or Danes. all the pri- of the Prussian and Austrian Ministers, vileges which the people of Denmark en- there were, if his memory did not deceive joyed. With respect to the proposals made him, passages in which they suggested, by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that if their demands were not conceded he must say he looked upon the proposal of by the King of Denmark, they would be September 1862 as being very much worse obliged to regard the Treaty of 1852 as than the one made in May 1861. The provoid. There had been great violence both posal of May 1861 was wise, safe, and well- on the part of the Danes and the Germans considered. True, it did not meet with on this question, and it was exceedingly difficult to observe a strict impartiality in had to express his regret that some plan regard to it; but he could have wished that had not been adopted by which the aughis noble Friend had said something in the mented livings would pass into the hands way of encouragement to the Danish Go- of clergymen as a gift from the Crown. vernment something which would have led the House to hope that that Government would, in this dangerous crisis of its affairs, receive, as far as justice would permit, the support of Her Majesty's Government. It was highly important for this country to maintain the independence and integrity of the Danish monarchy; but it would be extremely difficult to do so if we gave any countenance, either by words or acts, to pretensions put forward by Germany, which would make the integrity and independence of the Danish monarchy a mere shadow. EARL RUSSELL was understood to say, that at the present it would not be convenient to produce the despatches for which the noble Earl had asked; but they would be laid on the table at a later date. TELEGRAPHS BILL-(No. 83.) SECOND READING. OF Order for Second Reading read. LORD STANLEY ALDERLEY moved that the Bill be now read the second time. Various telegraph companies had obtained, by private Billa, which were unopposed, powers which would not have been granted to them if the Bills had come before Parliament as Public Bills, and the object of the present Bill was to restrict and regulate these powers. THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE said, that some of the provisions of the Bill were objectionable, particularly those which enabled telegraph companies arbitrarily to deal with property without the consent of the owners. There would, however, be an opportunity to bring the matter under their Lordships' notice in Committee. Motion agreed to: Bill read 2 accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday the 1st of June next. AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES (NO. 99.) THIRD READING. The Queen's Consent signified. LORD ST. LEONARDS said, he did not mean to oppose the measure, the object of which he entirely approved. But he THE LORD CHANCELLOR said, that it was an essential element in the measure, that the benefices should be placed at the disposal of the new purchasers. He would take that opportunity of adding that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales having been informed that the Bill might possibly interfere with his rights in respect of certain livings in the Duchy of Cornwall, his Royal Highness, acting in concurrence with the opinion of his legal advisers, had expressed his readiness to forego any such rights, and his unwillingness to offer any obstruction to the success of what he hoped would be so useful a measure. Bill read 3; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN (IRELAND) Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords, considered (according to Order): Then it was moved not to insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed; on Question, whether to insist? Resolved in the Negative; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith. DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDE said, that this Bill, which would, if passed, interfere with the beauty of Dublin, would be opposed on the third reading, and therefore, in order that their Lordships might be acquainted with all the facts of the case, he moved that the evidence taken by the Select Committee should be printed. He entreated noble Lords to give their consideration to this matter, as he was sure they would not willingly do anything to mar the beauty of the second city in the United Kingdom; and it had been represented that other schemes were more convenient, and that there would be no difficulty in carrying out an underground railway. Moved, That the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on this Bill be printed. THE EARL OF CLANCARTY suggested that such statements of counsel as would serve to direct attention to the more im |