HC Deb 25 February 1864 vol 173 cc1071-3
MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that Prussia and Austria have agreed to a Conference on the Affairs of Denmark; and, if so, whether that engagement involves an immediate suspension of hostilities between those Powers and Denmark?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, as I have stated on a former occasion, the great object of the Government during the long negotiations that have taken place has been to bring about a friendly settlement of the differences between Germany and Denmark. For that purpose we proposed an armistice as a foundation for a Conference; but we found both parties attached such conditions to the armistice as to make it impossible for the other party to agree to it. Disappointed in that hope, we have lately proposed a Conference without an armistice, thinking that if we got a certain number of persons round a table to discuss the matter we should be more likely to come to an arrangement than if we were at long distances from each other in the capitals of different countries. Austria and Prussia have agreed to that Conference without an armistice. I believe that France also would be willing to enter into such a Conference, and I fancy that Russia is disposed to do so. With regard to Sweden, I am not quite sure. We have no answer yet from Denmark; and, therefore, no decision has been come to.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

Sir, I understand the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to say, that the case contemplated under the Treaty of 1720 has not arisen. I wish, therefore, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which of the contradictory reports in circulation as to the occupation of a portion of Jutland by the Prussian Army is correct—whether it is true that the Prussian Army, which occupied a portion of Jutland, has since receded, or whether it is true that the occupation is based on strategic grounds and is to be maintained? Next, with regard to the answer given to my hon. Friend behind me, I wish to know whether the German Diet has been invited to attend the Conference; and, if so, what answer was given?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

That which has happened relative to the Prussian operations in Jutland is this—that the allied troops passed the frontier and took up a position at a place called Kölding. On representations being made at Berlin, we were informed that that operation was not only without orders, but against positive instructions, and that, in consequence, the commander of the forces on the spot would be reprimanded. But, it was added, that it appearing that the occupation of that particular place being of great strategical value for the security of the allied troops in Schleswig, the occupation would nevertheless be continued. The Prussian and Austrian Governments still adhere to this position—that they acknowledge the validity of the Treaty of 1852, and the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish monarchy; and therefore it is that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that the case contemplated by the Guarantee of 1720—supposing that guarantee to be still applicable, which is another question—does not apply to the present state of things. With regard to the German Diet, I am not quite sure. I should apprehend that the Diet has nothing to do with the armistice. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: The Conference!] The German Diet were asked originally to send a representative, and I am not sure what their decision may have been.