ADDRESS MOVED. (Hansard, 18 June 1861)

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

rose to move— 1. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to take such measures as may be necessary to prevent any foreign interference with the an- 1253 cient hereditary rights of Succession in the Kingdom of Denmark and the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. 2. Address for Copies of Royal Danish Note, addressed to the Foreign Cabinets, to invite them to a Conference at London, for the purpose of regulating the Succession, September, 1851 (alluded to in the Report of the Commission of the Danish Diet). Of Protocol of London of the 2nd day of August, 1850 (alluded to in Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 127, and in the Report to the Danish Diet): Of Negotiations relating to the Protocol of London: Of 'Report of the Commission of the Danish Diet upon the Succession' (alluded to in the Papers Relative to the Succession, p. 6): Of 'Report of Committee, presented to the German Diet on the 17th day of January, 1861' (alluded to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 133): Of 'Protest of Prince Frederick, 1859' (alluded to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 82): And, of 'Despatches of the 6th day of December, 1851' (referred to in the Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein, p. 58). It is with great diffidence that I presume to address the House upon the subject of Schleswig Holstein. The fact is, I had no idea at first that the question was of such moment as, on mature reflection, I have found it to be. It is, indeed, a matter not only of most urgent, but of daily-increasing importance. There are, in the first place, many grievances which form a just cause of complaint. Then, again, Baron Schleinitz, in alluding to a despatch of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, dated October 27, said that "the right of resistance was a remedy for all political grievances," thereby holding out a threat as to ulterior measures; and Mr. Ward, writing from Leipsic, also said that the question menaced the peace of Europe. The House is, doubtless, aware that a federal execution is pending in Holstein, and will take place on August 6. This matter is, therefore, of great importance in a material point of view, as threatening the peace of Europe and the commercial interests of this country. But it is also of greater importance in a higher point of view. For I hope to show that all this arises from one illegal act: from the rights of a nation having been tampered with, and its fundamental laws swept away. The papers laid on the table prove that in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, police regulations prevail as severe as any that existed in Sicily or Naples; all public meetings are forbidden, the press itself is gagged, and even the right to petition is 1254 denied. It appears from Mr. Ward's letter that a system of terrorism and oppression is employed against the German population of the Duchies, for the purpose of compelling them to consent to the abridgment of their Constitutional rights. I refer to the "Correspondence on Schleswig Holstein" (p. 29), where Mr. Ward, after saying that those who signed the Address to the King were subjected to persecution from the police, and that 300 from the town of Schleswig alone were imprisoned, continues in these words— A system of intimidation and terrorism would appear to be carried on against the German population of the Duchy, for the purpose of forcing them to submit to an abridgment of the constitutional rights which have been guaranteed equally to the German and Danish nationalities within the Duchy by the King Duke. The very use of the name "Schleswig Holstein" is an offence; and every institution bearing it has been suppressed, including the Bible Society, Art Union, Natural History Society, and Antiquarian Society, and even the Altona Almanack. This is proved from the papers laid upon the table of the House. But M. Raasloff, in his pamphlet, gives many other instances also. Danish officials who do sot understand German have replaced the natives of the Duchies in the courts of law and in ecclesiastical establishments. Further, the Danish language has to be used in the courts of law, in the churches, and schools, even in places where nothing but German is understood. Now, one of the benefits of the Reformation was that the services of the Church were thenceforth performed in the vernacular dialect. Yet the King of Denmark does away with this advantage by causing the services to be performed in a language which is not understood. Two German inhabitants had combined to employ a German tutor; they were immediately subjected to all sorts of indignities and oppression, until the tutor was discharged. M. Raasloff, the Royal Commissioner, mentions this fact; he also gives (Question of Languages, p. 32) another instance of the oppression which is carried on— One Herr Berkahn, a landed proprietor in Southern Anglia, engaged a governess from the city of Schleswig, a place which, even in the short exposition above mentioned, is acknowledged to belong to a purely German district. It was not until after the greatest difficulty, and upon the express condition of learning Danish immediately, that the governess was at all allowed to enter upon the duties of her situation, and obtained a pro- 1255 visional permission to reside with Herr Berkahn. On the occasion of the next visitation by the clerical authorities, Herr Berkahn was commanded to appear before the dean, bringing the children and governess with him; and then the local official said, 'This is not a question of equality of rights. Unless the governess is dismissed by the 1st of November, you will be heavily fined.' Even the German books which are supplied to the elementary schools are purposely written in bad German, give incorrect historical and geographical information, and contain immoral sentiments, which must pollute the minds of the children who use them. This seems perfectly incredible; yet it rests on the testimony of the Royal Commissioner himself, who says— Nor has the Danisation of the elementary schools, in the purely German districts, been omitted in the chain of 'logical consequences.'…A glance at the German Reading Book (edited by the Royal Ministry for the Duchy of Schleswig)…will show that, instead of being a guide to the correct knowledge of the language, German children even may be actually made to forget the rules of their mother tongue by the false teaching of an authorized production…. The Rev. Dr. Thiess, notwithstanding his Danish sympathies, said that the book was throughout as unchristian and immoral as it was un-German. Nay, even in the lunatic asylum at Schleswig, which contains ten times as many German patients as Danes, the German board of directors, doctor, and chaplain, have all been removed and replaced by Danes. Thus the patients are cut off from all confidential communication with their attendants, which is more necessary for lunatics than for any others. All this is not a passing injury, but a constant source of irritation. Need I allude to the deception practised by the Prime Minister of Denmark, who has cheated the foreign Governments and deceived his own Diet? Listen to what the Royal Commissioner himself says upon that point, in a pamphlet called My Reply, which has been translated into French from the original language. He says— Above all it may be observed what an amount of duplicity has prevailed throughout this whole transaction from beginning to end; so much so that the President of the Council assumes a different pretence when he speaks to me, the Royal Commissioner, from that which he puts on when he addresses foreign Courts. This puts me in a very false and difficult position. But this position becomes no longer tenable when he keeps me in ignorance of the language which he has held to foreign Courts. In fact, the question seems to travel in a vicious round of great snares and mean decep- 1256 tions; the Duchies are duped by the one, while by the other they are irritated. But why is all this oppression practised? What is the object? The object of all these measures, all these deceptions, and all these persecutions is to incorporate the Duchies, or, as it is called by an euphemism, to promote the "Integrity of the Monarchy." One of the Danish clergy appointed by the Government, Danish by birth, Danish in sympathies, Danish in associations, had said, when speaking in defence of this system, and yet blaming it as too weak to attain its object, "Yet, after ten years of repression, the German element is still predominant." M. Grundtvig, the incarnation of the Eyder-Danish party, explained, in the newspaper Fœdrelandet, what were the views of that party— Schleswig shall be incorporated with Denmark; Holstein shall be cut off from Germany, and shall thus be rendered neutral. The whole country is aware that this is the object. In the year 1838 the Diet of Schleswig Holstein adopted an address to the King, complaining that the whole aim and purport of the Administration had been to separate Schleswig from Holstein, and incorporate the former with Denmark. They said that "they would never submit to annexation;" that "the pressure was perfectly intolerable;" and they reminded the King that "tranquillity had always reigned until this attempt to incorporate began." On the 7th of April last, the Diet at Itze-hoe adopted an address, in which they complained that "the preceding Diet had never assented to the Law of Succession of 1853—that it had been submitted to the acceptance of the Danish Diet, but that the assent of the Duchies had never been asked." They refer the cause of all the bitterness and discontent on the part of the people of Schleswig Holstein to the Succession which was forced upon them by the Treaty of 1852, and the Law of Succession which was passed in consequence of that treaty. To this Mr. Ward also bears testimony. He writes, September 27, 1860— There is in the Duchies a large party who are dissatisfied with the Rule of Succession fixed in 1863, and who would, if they could, still give the ducal crown to a prince of the House of Augustenburg. And Lord Bloomfield, in reporting the debate in the Prussian House of Representatives, tells us that one speaker said— It was for no Power a more sacred duty to 1257 speak a decisive word on the side of right and justice in the matter than for England, whose policy from 1848 to 1852 had so materially conduced to the misery under which Schleswig Holstein at present groaned. And that another speaker Specially called attention to the action of the Great Powers from 1848 to 1852, showing how the status quo, fraught as it was with the seeds of perpetual disquiet, had been brought about by the overpowering influence of Russia. Therefore, on the one hand, the oppressive measures of the King arise from a desire to incorporate the Duchies, which is the ostensible object of the treaty; while, on the other hand, the bitterness of the Duchies is traced by themselves to the Succession forced upon them by the treaty. What I undertake to prove is that the union of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein has existed from the most ancient times; but that along with this there has been a continued intrigue to incorporate those Duchies with the kingdom of Denmark; in fact, to promote the "integrity of the monarchy." A reference to the Annual Register shows that five hundred years ago the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were intimately connected. In the time of our Edward VI., Christian I. was elected King of Denmark; and about eleven years afterwards he became the hereditary reigning Duke of Schleswig and Holstein, on the express stipulation that he would swear to observe the Constitution of Waldemar. To this constitution every reigning Duke, from A.D. 1326 to this day, has had to swear; in that oath he swears to preserve the union, the local self-government, and the separate national existence of the States of Schleswig and Holstein. The first oath is that he would preserve Schleswig and Holstein undivided; and another is that no Danish or foreign officers shall be employed in the Duchies. The successors of this King were reigning Dukes of the Duchies as well as Kings of Denmark, because these hereditary Dukes were elected by the Danes as their Kings; for Denmark was an elective monarchy. The Treaty of Roskilde formally recognized Schleswig as a sovereign and independent State in 1658. In the year 1663 Frederick III. effected a coup d'étât, and converted the kingdom of Denmark from an elective to an hereditary sovereignty. He promulgated a Law of Succession, making the Crown hereditary in both males and females, but did not interfere with the law of Succession which obtained in the Duchies, according to which females could 1258 not succeed to the Ducal Crown. Thus there came to be a different Lex Regia in Denmark and in the Duchies, The connection between Denmark and the Duchies is, in fact, precisely similar to that which, before the accession of Her Majesty, existed between Hanover and this country. In Hanover the Salic Law prevails just as it did in the Duchies. England went to the Crown of Hanover because we elected the House of Hanover to our throne, just as Denmark went to the Duchies. But here is the difference: when the Queen ascended the throne, we, rather than break the fundamental law of Hanover which excluded females from the crown, surrendered not only the Kingdom of Hanover itself, but also the additions which had, at the peace of 1815, been made to it as a compensation for the exertions which England had made in the wars against Napoleon. In the case of the Duchies, however, the law had been prospectively broken, and was going to be infringed for the sake of preventing the separation of the Duchies from Denmark. What should we have said if, thirty years ago, Plenipotentiaries had sat down and had arranged that our Crown should not go to our beloved Queen, but to the Duke of Mecklenburg, and had never even asked our consent? This would have been a precisely similar case. In the year 1846, Christian VIII., breaking the oath of Waldemar, extended the Law of Succession of Denmark to the Duchies, abolishing the Salic Law which had previously existed there. The Landgravine of Hesse would otherwise now be the heir to the Throne of Denmark, and the Duke of Augustenburg would be the future reigning Duke in Schleswig Holstein. Thus he first openly attempted this nefarious system of annexation, under the guise of the integrity of the monarchy. But how did this come about? For many years before that, secret agencies had been at work in Denmark, inciting the people to seek for the incorporation of the Duchies with the Kingdom. Thus, in the manifesto of the Stadholderate of the Duchies (p. 6) it is stated that— The Danish press and the political clubs, ever since 1830, have proposed the Danification of Schleswig. The provincial States of Denmark in 1844 followed the mark, and went a step further; they requested a Royal Declaration to this purpose: 'that the whole monarchy was an indivisible heirloom.'….Propositions were made at St. Petersburg in 1838, and embodied in the Letters Patent of 1846, which had the integrity of the collective monarchy in view, 1259 Now, things do not occur of themselves; some power, though unseen—some energy, though it may be hidden, is always at work. It is only thoughtless people who look upon human affairs without seeking for the causes which produce them. In 1843 the son of the Landgravine of Hesse, and heir-presumptive to the Crown of Denmark, married the daughter of the Emperor Nicholas, who from that moment began to negotiate for his succession to the Duchies. The Morning Chronicle, then the organ of the Foreign Office, called attention, in 1844, to this fact— Prince Frederick William (of Hesse) is married to a daughter of the Emperor Nicholas, who has already shown his zeal for the interests of his son-in-law by negotiating for him the succession of the Duchies of Holstein, which, in the ordinary course of events, would fall to the ducal family of Holstein Augustenburg, and not to the Prince of Hesse.…. The Law of Succession of Holstein is different from that for Denmark, &c…. But Russia is believed to have precluded this result (the separation of the Duchies from Denmark), by having induced the Duke of Augustenburg and his family to cede their rights of succession in consideration of a large pecuniary indemnity. Thus Denmark and the Duchies are to be preserved as an entire inheritance for Prince Frederick William and his heirs, by means of Russian gold, and family ties will give Russia a natural and preponderating influence in that monarchy, which holds the keys of the Baltic, the Sound, and the Belt.… We know too much of the far-seeing policy of Russia to regard this with indifference. It must be borne in mind that the attempt, in this instance, was to make the Crown of the entire monarchy and Duchies descend in the cognatic or female line, under pretence of maintaining the "integrity of the monarchy." A year after this marriage the Emperor's daughter died, so the negotiations were given up; the Emperor was no longer desirous to procure the entire monarchy for Prince Frederick William. In 1846 the Due de Cases was sent on a secret mission to Copenhagen, and the result was the publication of the Letters Patent of Christian VIII., extending the Lex Regia of Denmark to the Duchies, under the name of "preserving the integrity of the monarchy." Thiers is the authority for this. The facts of the case were these: Louis Philippe was then engaged in negotiating the Spanish marriages, and he was most anxious, as he had lost our countenance, to buy the support of Russia. The Times stated that, "in order to conciliate the favour of Russia he was willing to sacrifice everything, from Cracow to Constantinople." He, at the instance of 1260 the Russian Ambassador, sent his embassy to Denmark, which resulted in the publication of the Letters Patent to which I have before alluded. The Duchies protested against these letters, and the German Confederation issued a decree calling on the King of Denmark to revoke these Letters Patent. In another letter, of September 8, 1846, the King strove to explain away the statements contained in the former letters, and promised that no measures should be taken to destroy the Union of Schleswig and Holstein, Then he inaugurated the attempt to effect by administrative amalgamation that which he had failed to accomplish by arbitrary power. Since then the Danish motto has been "Denmark to the Eyder;" since then these repressive measures on the German element in Schleswig have been resorted to. In 1848, January 28, the present King came to the throne, and swore that "nothing should be done to alter the existing Union of Schleswig and Holstein." On the 18th of March, the States of the Duchies held a meeting at Rendsburg, and determined to send a deputation to the King to represent their case. The depution consisted of Count Reventlow and others. It left Kiel on the 21st of March. But on the 20th, the news of this meeting had reached Copenhagen. Of course, they had heard of what had occurred in Paris; the mob became much excited the Eyder Danish party flew to arms; placards were posted up, declaring that "the wish and the will of the Danish people is that Schleswig must be separated from Holstein, and must be incorporated as a province of Denmark." They besieged the King in his palace, and insisted on his accepting their programme. The Monarch gave way; the Moltke Ministry resigned, and favourites of the mob were received into confidence, men who were pledged to incorporate the Duchies by sword and bayonet: Messrs. Tcherning and Monrad, known enemies of the Duchies. The news of this émeute reached Kiel on the 23rd; a Provisional Government was instantly appointed, because the King was at the beck and bid of a Copenhagen mob, and the Duchies did not wish to be under the feet of a Danish mob, but desired to uphold their laws. The objects of the Duchies should be kept clearly in view. In the manifesto they say, July 22, 1850— Right and duty of Resistance.—The forcible breach of a fundamental law is a political crime which both nature and reason cither enjoin, or at 1261 least will permit us, to ward of by every means warranted in self-defence. For us the people of Schleswig Holstein, not only the right, but the duty of resistance is expressly laid down in our constitutional laws of 1460; where it is stated that 'if ever any one within this country, or out of it, should infringe upon the articles therein contained, then shall we be pledged to oppose him; and each and every man shall be bounden to tender his faithful assistance in protecting the said letter and treaty in all and every clause.' In exercise of this right, in fulfilment of that duty, the Duchies are in arms against this recent attack of Denmark. And again (p. 11)— We deliberately insist on this fact, that we are struggling for our rights, for the rights of the people of Schleswig-Holstein, and for a state of things by law established. We would call upon the Powers of Europe to consider that the circumstances of the time reflect on our struggle the character of a struggle for the interests of public order and for established rights. Thus the Duchies, though suffering from oppression greater than had prevailed in Naples or Sicily, did not, like those kingdoms, cast off their hereditary Monarch, but expressed their determination to uphold the fundamental laws of the State, and to protect the King against the mob by which he was governed. The noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs had said, that nations which felt themselves aggrieved, or which were dissatisfied with their governments, were justified in getting rid of them and appointing what government they chose. Why had not the Duchies this right conceded to them, when they never rebelled against their King, but desired only to defend their laws? In Naples we refused to interfere in support of law; in the Duchies we did interfere to break the law. In 1849 the armies of Prussia went to the States of Schleswig-Holstein to support the Duchies in their rightful claim, and an autograph letter was written by the King to the Duke of Augustenberg, enjoining him by every means in his power to maintain the rights of his country, and promising that he should receive material support from Prussia. But when the reaction set in after 1848, the Manteuffel Ministry, which is sneered at, despised, and hated by the people of Germany as Russian in its tendency, was appointed. Then the policy of Prussia underwent a change. A treaty of peace was promoted by the Manteuffel Ministry, to which a secret article was appended. That treaty has been laid on the Table of this House, but the secret article included in it has not been produced. This 1262 article provided that the King of Prussia should support the propositions of the King of Denmark for altering the succession and for preserving the integrity of the monarchy. Whether the allegations regarding the influences, by which the Manteuffel Ministry were affected were true or not, it is impossible for me to say; but across the original draft of the document to which I refer, and which I hold in my hand, there is written "Meyendorff" (the Russian Ambassador) "has had the settling of all these items." This explains the sudden change which took place in the Prussian policy. In 1849 Prussian troops were sent to the Duchies with the avowed object of supporting their just claims; the Russian fleet appeared off the coast; and in 1850 the Prussian troops were withdrawn with the secret intention of abandoning the Duchies to their fate. The Treaty of Peace of 1850 was enclosed in a Despatch from Lord Westmoreland, in which he said:— I cannot close this Despatch without stating that Baron Meyendorff, the Russian Minister, has been unremitting in his exertions to bring about the termination of this negotiation, and that fortified by the declarations which have lately emanated from his Government he has greatly contributed to that result. In 1851 the King of Denmark, still entertaining those projects of annexation with regard to the Duchies, sent Sponnek, his Minister of Finance, to Vienna, to propose that Holstein should be formally separated from the German Confederation and annexed to Denmark. Prince Schwarzenberg, however, sneered at the proposal. In 1852 the King solemnly promised that he would do nothing towards incorporating Schleswig with the kingdom. Of this promise he was reminded in a Despatch by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who seemed, he must say, to have acted a fair part latterly in these transactions. Lord John Russell wrote, December 8, 1860— There can be no doubt, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that these promises constitute an engagement which his Danish Majesty is bound in honour to fulfil. He is bound not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark. And Mr. Paget writes (p. 58)— The only positive engagement entered into by Denmark towards Austria and Prussia was, that it would not incorporate Sehleswig, or do anything which would tend towards that end." [See the Despatches to the Danish Envoys at Berlin and Vienna, December 6th, 1851.] It has, therefore, been shown that the ob- 1263 ject of the Duchies was not to sever their connection with the person of their Sovereign, but to defend their laws from being crushed by a mob. The war began by an attempt to incorporate the Duchies: peace was concluded by the treachery of the Allies in forcing the Duchies again under the Danish yoke. This sore is still running; for the intrigues and measures of repression to promote this incorporation are still being continued. Frederick VI. and Christian VIII. desired to centralize the Government; but "let I dare not wait upon I would." This King, carried away on the shoulders of the Eyder Danish party, "bends up each corporal agent" to this feat, and tries to enforce what his predecessors desired. This policy of incorporation came to a head in the Treaty of London of May 8, 1852. It is not a treaty; because, if seven parties put their names to a contract for an object which is not lawful the agreement is not binding, and the proceeding is rather of the nature of a conspiracy than a contract. Imagine a contract to dispose of a settled property away from the next heir to some very distant relation. This is exactly the case with the Treaty of London. The Germans have never acknowledged it as a treaty to this day. They call it the Protocol of London; and the Prince who will come in under that treaty they call the Protocol Prince. Austria and Prussia signed it; but the Diet has never authorized them to do so, and, consequently, their signatures to that treaty are invalid. I have been informed on the best authority—though unfortunately I may not produce that authority to the House—that Prussia is most desirous to break the treaty, and do away with it. I believe that Austria would be willing to do the same. There is, besides, our signature with those of France and Russia to the Treaty of May 8, 1852; but since that time we have both been at war with Russia; and it is well established that a war between two Powers puts an end to every treaty between them, and that no previously existing treaty holds good except it be renewed after the war. Thus it is that the Treaty of Peace between Prussia and Denmark contains a renewal of all previous treaties. I will presently show that the policy of this treaty was not chosen by us, but had been forced upon us; and since then many eminent statesmen have expressed their thorough dislike to it. If this were a question of the succession to n peerage it would demand the strictest 1264 investigation; and command the greatest attention. Yet this is much more; it involves the succession to a Crown of Europe. Now, if it were right for us to do this, it follows that it would he equally right for other nations to treat us in a similar manner. And what will the treaty do? The Treaty of 1852 has not yet come into operation. It is still in abeyance, and will not take effect till the death of the present King. Now, in the first place, it acknowledges as permanent this nightmare "integrity of the monarchy," and then supersedes the law of the land by altering the succession. And, according to its provisions, when the present King dies, the succession, instead of going to the next heir, is to jump over nineteen heirs, until it comes to one who is only three before the Emperor of Russia. The treaty will cut out the whole of the female line; and it determines that no son of the future King, Christian, shall be allowed to succeed except a son by the Princess Louise of Hesse. It will thrust aside all other children he may have. But never has any explanation of this extraordinary treaty, nor any information concerning it, been given to Parliament. Yet this is the first time, with one exception, that England ever entered into a treaty of succession. We did so in the case of the Treaty of Utrecht, but in no previous instance. This Treaty of London is one of great moment; it purports, moreover, to do for constitutional states that which they should do for themselves; and it regards a constitutional King as an absolute monarch; and yet it has never been explained to the House; we know absolutely nothing about what led to it. The first information which we had of it was conveyed by an article in The Times of the 11th of May, 1852—three days after the treaty itself was signed. In that article allusion was made to the negotiations which, during a period of many years, had preceded the final arrangement; it speaks of the principles of the treaty having been laid down in the Protocol of London, saying, "When at length Lord Palmerston was induced to lay down these principles in the Protocol of London." It says also that "the announcement of the London Protocol, which Prussia refused to sign," was received in Germany with scorn and resentment." Now, are Ministers responsible to the House of Commons, or is this an oligarchy? If they are responsible why should this mystified article in a daily newspaper be all that is given to enable us 1265 to judge of their conduct? If we are to have a share in the Government, we should have the necessary information for governing; if we are to deliberate, we should know the facts of the case which we are called on to judge; if Government be responsible, we should know about the Acts which we are called upon to endorse or to condemn. Now every one imagined that the Treaty of London had been founded on the Protocol of Warsaw, of June 5, 1851. For, on the 20th of March, 1851, Lord Palmerston made use of these observations— A good deal had passed with regard to these points—that is to say, in regard to the succession to the Crown of Denmark, and as connected with that, in regard to the arrangements for the order of succession in Schleswig and Holstein. But Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations. Now, in the Report of the Danish Diet I find an allusion to the Protocol of London, which is said to have been signed on the 2nd of August, 1850, or nine months before the noble Lord said "Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations." But why should the noble Lord have denied that Her Majesty's Government had had anything to do with these negotiations? Why should he keep this London Protocol such a secret? The words of the noble Lord would make one think that he was ashamed of that protocol. Why say that they had "studiously and systematically kept themselves aloof from all negotiations?" In the armistice between Prussia and Denmark, dated July 2, 1850, which has been laid upon the Table of this House. Article 4 says— Doubts have been raised as to the succession. By whom have these doubts been raised? And at p. 4 I find that thanks are returned to the English Cabinet for the "active part" they took. Again, M. Hall says, at p. 127 of the correspondence, that The principle of the integrity of the monarchy was loudly proclaimed in the London Protocol. But why, then, make such a strict secret of that protocol? The "Project of the Protocol of London" is dated June 2, 1850; it was signed August 2 in the same year. The first article is as follows:— 1266 The unanimous desire of the said Powers is that the state of the possessions actually united under the Crown of Denmark shall be maintained in its integrity. I should have supposed from the statements of the noble Viscount (Lord Palmerston) that these negotiations must have been carried on behind his back. But it appears from the original notes of that protocol, which I hold in my hand, that the noble Viscount must have taken part in them; because I find in one place, "Variation rejected by Lord Palmerston," and in another, "Variation not yet discussed with Lord Palmerston." I cannot, therefore, understand why the noble Viscount stated that "Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically kept aloof from these negotiations." There is a note at the foot in the same handwriting— On July 8, Drouyn de Lhuys had an audience of the Queen. This shows that there was another conference on that day. In another copy there are no crosses to the names of the Prussian and Austrian Ambassadors in the list of those present. Perhaps, as the Prussian Plenipotentiary refused to sign, the Austrian also absented himself. Here, then, is proof that the negotiations for this protocol were commenced not later than June 2, 1850; the peace at Berlin, with the Secret Article relating to the succession, was signed at Berlin, on July 2. There was another conference in London on July 3, and the protocol was signed on August 2. But for what reason was this kept so secret, and even denied? I have been told that this protocol was presented to the Cabinet by the noble Viscount, but that it met with disapproval from them, and that they refused to agree to it. The Government were then in difficulties. The Pacifico business was going on. The Ministry had been outvoted in the other House of Parliament on a Motion of want of confidence by a majority of 37. This happened on June 17, 1850. M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the French Ambassador, had been recalled; and Count Nesselrode had written what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer called a "public lesson" to the noble Viscount. I trust I may be allowed to refer to what was said in that debate by two such eminent supporters of the noble Viscount as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Rochdale. Mr. Gladstone (June 1267 27, 1850), on the Pacifico debate, read what he called a "public lesson," which was written by Count Nesselrode to Lord Palmerston, and used these words— It is not only with France that we have had to deal: what is the lesson which Count Nesselrode has read to us?…. This lesson, so read to you without reply, is a lesson from the mouth of the Autocrat of all the Russians." [3 Hansard cxii., 580–81.] If the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed a prescience of the true state of the case, yet the acute insight of the hon. Member for Rochdale was greater. Read, I ask you, the extraordinary language used by Count Nesselrode to Lord Palmerston, and then read the answer of the latter, and see how different is the tone adopted by him (Lord Palmerston) to a country which is powerful, compared with that he makes use of to one that is weak…. A hectoring epistle from Count Nesselrode, to which the noble Viscount sent a very meek and lamb like reply— First you submit to rebuke from Russia, and next you are humiliated before France." [Ibid, 664–67.] And then he uses these pregnant words— I believe the noble Lord is of an active turn of mind—that he likes these protocols and conventions." [Ibid, 673.] This arrow, sent at a venture, must have wounded the noble Viscount's conscience sorely. He continues— He made a speech against Austria, I remember, on one occasion, but he did not breathe a syllable against Russia. The only allusion he made to Russia was in the nature of an apology, uttered in a sense that seemed to justify the part taken by Russia." [Ibid, 673.] Well, then, as I have said, the Cabinet appears to have disapproved of this protocol; but then there was the Pacifico difficulty; a vote of want of confidence in the Lords; the French Ambassador recalled; a "hectoring epistle" from St. I Petersburg; the Russian Ambassador demanding his passports. But what, then, I induced the British Cabinet to sign the treaty? The Weser Zeitung, of April, 1853, answered the question as follows:— Count Reventlow, the active Minister of Denmark in London, had long been preparing the first London Protocol, in which the integrity of the Danish Monarchy was pointed out as a thing to be wished. Russia was seconding, England was temporizing, and Prussia at that time kept so far aloof that the Chevalier Bunsen, on August 1, 1850, even handed a note of protest to Lord Palmerston. Russia availed herself of the confusion brought about in the Piræus by Lord Palmerston, and of the favour shown by him to M. Pacifico, to instruct to M. Brunnow to demand his passport. 1268 Lord Palmerston, apparently surprised, asked whether there were not any means of adjusting the difference? 'To be sure,' was the reply;' the signature of 'the London Protocol.' The protocol was actually signed three weeks afterwards. But perhaps the best authority on the subject is M. von Gagern, the President of the German Parliament, who, in his Protest, published at Manheim in 1852, said— Denmark, Russia, and France had from 1816 [when Christian VIII. published his Letters Patent] been active in urging the institution of the Collective Monarchy. In the spring of 1850 a favourable conjuncture had arisen, which Russia was the first to perceive; first, in the unfortunate division of the German Powers; secondly, in the disgust of the British Ministry at the long delay of the negotiations for peace at Berlin; and last, not least, in the personal embarrassment of Lord Palmerston, whose Ministerial position had been endangered…. Some diplomatic success to assuage the Tories, and an apparent reconciliation with Russia, were under such circumstances what Lord Palmerston could not do without, if he wanted to remain at the helm. The accession of England to that protocol was the first desideratum, and Lord Palmerston, under the circumstances, had declared himself ready to sign. These authorities seem to assert that the noble Viscount, for the sake of retaining office for one year had consented to sign a protocol of which his Cabinet disapproved, had interfered in the affairs of a foreign nation, had committed an act of injustice, had altered the succession, had swept away the fundamental laws of the State, and had entailed eleven years of misery upon the Duchies. Thus, it appears, he submitted for the sake of office, to make us become the tools of another Power. Calm deliberation obliged his Cabinet to refuse; personal inconvenience induced them to yield. Out of this protocol grew the Protocol of Warsaw and the Treaty of 1852 as necessary consequences. 1852 is a memorable year; then the treaty was signed; and a letter from our Sovereign was read at the Table of this House, informing the House that the noble Viscount was "wanting in sincerity to the Crown," and was in the habit of deceiving Her. Thus, the protocol and the treaty were conceived in subjection, and were executed in duplicity. They were signed, not from approval, but for the exigencies of a Minister. I now turn to the Protocol of Warsaw, June 5, 1851. It is founded on "the importance of maintaining the Banish Monarchy in its integrity." It then says— 1269 The rights of inheritance devolve upon Prince Christian in virtue of the renunciations of the Landgravine of Hesse, of her son Prince Frederick, and of her daughter Princess Mary. Then afterwards it says the King, Wishing, on his part, to complete the titles resulting from these renunciations. Now these renunciations had not then been made. The Report of the Danish Diet says (p. 14)— The renunciations in favour of the Princess Louise by the nearest heirs are already cited in the Protocol of Warsaw, although at the time when that protocol was signed the renunciations had not been made, as is shown by the Acts of Renunciation laid before the Diet. M. Bluhme's despatch of May 9, 1853 Papers relative to the Succession, p. 7), confirms this statement. He says— The message affords the king very great liberty, &c … in so much that his Majesty need not seek at once the successive renunciations by those possessing rights annulled by the treaty, or rendered impossible by other means, Yet the Protocol of Warsaw is grounded on the supposition that the renunciations have already been voluntarily made. The protocol continues— Nevertheless, it is understood that the eventual rights of the two younger branches of Holstein Gottorp should be expressly reserved, that those which the august chief of the elder branch should abandon for himself and for his male lineage in favour of Prince Christian of Glucksbourg and of his male lineage should be revived in the Imperial House of Russia whenever (which God forbid) the male lineage of that Prince should become extinct. These reservations were repeated when the treaty was signed. Baron Brunnow's note, handed in at the signature of the treaty, May 8, 1852, says that he Having been authorized to sign the treaty, … has been ordered to transmit, at the same time, the present note, for the purpose of recalling and renewing the reserves contained in the Protocol of Warsaw. He then recites these reservations from the protocol. Therefore, after the death of Christian and his sons, these claims will be revived into rights; they are now acknowledged as such by this treaty. Russia, therefore, virtually gives up nothing for something; for under no circumstances could she have preferred any claims till all these, and many more intervening heirs besides, had been dead. Hence, by pretending to renounce, she cuts out nineteen heirs, and comes in all the sooner to the Crown. M. Bluhme sends a despatch from Copenhagen, May 1270 9,1853, Papers relative to the Succession, p. 8, saying— The Diet fear a preponderating influence on the part of Russia in the application of Article 2 of the Treaty of London, it being in the power of His Majesty the Emperor, by means of the reservations made by the Protocol of Warsaw, and renewed at the conclusion of the Treaty of May 8th of last year to support a claimant which all the monarchy would be forced to accept, because the Cognate Succession, established by the Royal Law, being abolished once for all through all parts of the monarchy open to this succession, would have no claimant to oppose to him. Nearly a century ago Russia got Oldenburg in lieu of some doubtful claims on a small part of Holstein. The arrangement was this: on the failure of the heirs of Frederick III. Oldenberg was to revert to Denmark, and Holstein Gottorp to Russia. Now, on the contrary, Russia will come in for the whole—Holstein, Schleswig, Denmark, Iceland, and all—on the death of three persons; but she does not resign Oldenburg until all (he intervening heirs also shall have died. Besides, those "claims" were very doubtful; now they are acknowledged as "rights." Moreover, Bunsen, in p. 19 of his Memoir to Lord Palmerston, denies the validity of the renunciations. Besides, if they were valid, why should they not have been incorporated in the treaty, as the renunciations of the House of Bourbon were incorporated in the Treaty of Utrecht? The upshot of the whole matter is that Russia gives up nothing in exchange for getting her succession made more rapid and more certain; and for getting doubtful claims acknowledged as rights; and by procuring an acknowledgment of the "integrity of the monarchy" as permanent, she, of course, obtains the whole instead of a small part. Thus M. Usedom, the Minister of Foreign Affairs at Berlin, in his official Memoir to the King of Prussia, February 4, 1851, says— In attempting to break the legitimate succession in the Duchies, violently and without a free renunciation on the part of those concerned, the dangerous principle of arbitrary power is installed in the place of positively existing hereditary rights…. I pray to God that your Majesty may, at any risk, keep yourself free from establishing the principle of' integrity' which is not in existence, but which is only intended to be artificially created. The right of Denmark with regard to such 'integrity' has hitherto no other foundation than her own desire. Chevalier Bunsen, in his Memoir to Lord Palmerston, p. 31, says— It was only too much to be feared that the 1271 plan now proposed was nothing but the execution of the project which the late French Goverment had recommended in 1846" (which was done at the instance of Russia.) Now, that this is no chimerical fear or childish fancy, is proved by the fact that it was shared by no less a man than the historian M. Thiers, who said— It is quite enough, in delivering Finland to the Russians, to have afforded them the means of a step in advance to the Sound, a point from which they will not be less menacing to us, at a future day, when the Russian Colossus with one foot on the Dardanelles and another on the Sound, will make the whole world his slave, and liberty will have fled to America. However chimerical all this may seem now to narrow minds, it will one day be a cruel reality. I trust the House will bear in mind that our agreement to all this arose not from deliberate approval, but from the political exigency of a Minister, who, to retain office, signed the bond which bound him to carry out this policy. The treaty was submitted to the Danish Diet (but not to the States of the Duchies), and was forced upon them by the Minister saying that "any alteration would appear as if the King had broken his engagement with the foreign Powers." The proposed abolition of the Law of Succession of Denmark was also laid before them, and the Minister represented such a step as a "European necessity" to them; but to the foreign Powers he asserted, before the signature of the treaty, that the Diet had already taken that step. The Diet was three times dissolved before this alteration of the Lex Regia could be forced upon them. This recalls the frequent dissolution of Parliament in Charles's reign, which has been always held up as a justication for the violent retaliation which followed. But the extraordinary thing is that this abolition of the Lex Regia of Denmark also was brought about by foreign interference. In the Papers relative to the Succession, p. 9, there is a despatch from Lord Clarendon, dated June 7, 1853, Sir,—M. de Bille has communicated to me the despatch addressed by the Danish Government to the Danish Ministers at the Courts parties to the treaty of the 8th of May, a copy of which was enclosed in your despatch of the 11th ult., and which contains an explanation of the reasons which induced the Danish Government not to confine themselves to a simple communication of that treaty to the Danish Chambers, but to accompany it by a proposition for the abolition of the Lex Regia. Although the course which the Danish Government has deemed it expedient to pursue in this respect would not appear to call for the ex- 1272 pression of an opinion on the part of a foreign Government, I have yet to instruct you, as the expression of such opinion appears from your despatch to be desired, to assure the Danish Minister that Her Majesty's Government do full justice to the motives by which the Danish Government have been actuated, and that they see no reasons for changing the opinion already on various occasions expressed by Viscount Palmerston, that the abolition of the law in question (namely, the Lex Regia of Denmark) would afford a simple, safe, and apparently unobjectionable method of hereafter preventing renewed complications, such as those to which the Treaty of the 8th May so happily put an end. Now, in the first place, it is odd that this measure should be defended on the score that it would "prevent hereafter" that which had already been "put an end to." But it is a still more extraordinary discovery that the abolition of the Lex Regia should also be due to the noble Viscount.