§ THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that with reference to the mission of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wodehouse) to Copenhagen, he wished to put a Question with regard to a speech attributed to the late Danish Minister, M. Hall, which had been printed in the public papers. M. Hall, in appearing before the electors, stated the other day that he had had a conversation 1897 with the noble Lord, in which he asked him whether the withdrawal of the Constitution of November, as recommended by Her Majesty's Government, would be sufficient to avert the invasion of Schleswig. To this the noble Lord was reported to have answered most distinctly that it certainly would not. He did not see in the Correspondence anything to bear out that statement, and as the papers delivered came down to a later date, if any such statement had been made it ought to have been published. On the 21st of December there was, indeed, a conversation between M. Hall and the noble Lord, in which the former asked whether the withdrawal of the Constitution would be sufficient to prevent any further demands from being made, or any further steps taken by the German Powers. The noble Lord appeared to have evaded the question very ingeniously, the answer given being that it would be better for Denmark to consider not what she would gain by complying, but what she might lose by refusing. He wished to know, Whether there were any other circumstances that approached nearer to the statement of M. Hall; and, if so, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to state them?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that it was a very irregular course to ask an individual Peer as to the part he had taken in a negotiation of this description. The Government were anxious to give every information on this subject, but he was not quite sure whether it was for the advantage of the public service that Her Majesty's Government should be asked questions upon every phase of negotiations still going on. It would have been more regular to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if he had been in his place, than to question an individual Peer as to the course he had pursued on a mission of this kind.
§ THE EARL or DERBYsaid, he had given private notice to the noble Lord (Lord Wodehouse) of his intention, and he informed him that he had not only no objection to answer the question, but that he should be very much obliged to him for putting it. When a statement had been made by a noble Lord in his character of representative of this country, and when publicity had been given to the statement, it was only due to the noble Lord that he should have an opportunity of explanation.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he was glad to have the opportunity of answering the 1898 Question which had been put by the noble Earl, as he thought it most desirable to remove the impression which had arisen from the manner in which the statement had appeared in the public papers. He had read the speech of M. Hall, but he was not clear what M. Hall meant to say. It appeared, however, that M. Hall stated that he (Lord Wodehouse) said that the revocation of the Constitution of November 18th, as regarded Schleswig, would not prevent the German invasion of that State. On his arrival at Copenhagen the execution which had been ordered by the German Diet in Holstein was imminent; and those who had read the papers would see from his despatch of the 16th of December that he stated that he had considered whether any measures that the Danish Government might be advised to take would have the effect of stopping the Federal execution, and that he regretted he had come to the conclusion that no measures which the Government could take would have that effect. He had very little doubt that M. Hall referred to that statement. He remembered being asked, after his arrival in Copenhagen, whether any measures were likely to stop the execution; and his answer was, in accordance with what he had stated in the despatch, that he was afraid nothing could stop it; and this was perfectly in accordance with what he had heard at Berlin. With regard to any further measures which the German Governments had since taken, it was clear he could not have made the statement in reference to them, for the simple reason that he could not possibly know what those measures would be. As the negotiations went on until the end of January, and he left in the first week in January, it was not probable that he could state with confidence what would be the result of the advice given by him during the last weeks of December. The object of the advice which he tendered at the instance of Her Majesty's Government to the Danish Government was, if possible, to prevent the invasion of Schleswig; and although he should have been taking too much upon himself had he engaged for the German Powers that they would not invade Schleswig, yet undoubtedly the object of the advice which he gave was to limit the occupation of the German troops to Holstein. He was speaking of a time when the execution had taken place, and when the only object was to prevent the invasion of another State which did not belong to the 1899 German Confederation, which the German Confederation had never claimed, and the invasion of which the Danish Government throughout declared they would regard as an act of war.