LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can explain the statement which appeared in The Times of Tuesday, the 28th of June, to the effect that the President of the Council of the Lower House of the Rigsraad, in answer to a question upon the Conference, made the following reply?—
The Danish Plenipotentiaries were instructed to accept the line of demarcation of the Schlei, and to agree to a fortnight's prolongation of the armistice should England firmly adhere to that line. Earl Russell promised that neither would he make a proposal himself, nor support the proposal of any other Plenipotentiary which would be less favourable to Denmark, unless Denmark herself should consent to such new proposals. Earl Russell nevertheless proposed, in the sitting of the Conference on the 18th, that the question should be submitted to arbitration, although Denmark did not consent to this proposal.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, there is no inconsistency in the assurance of my noble Friend and the course which he took. The statement is not absolutely correct. It is very easy to substitute one word for another, and so to alter the meaning. My noble Friend did not say he would make no proposal. What he stated was, that if the Danes would agree to the line of the Schlei, he would not himself propose any other line, or support any other line if it was proposed by any other Power; and to that engagement he adhered. But when, at last, it was found that the Danes would not consent to any line north of the Schlei, and that the Germans would not consent to any line south of Apenrade, it then became necessary either to give up the whole thing in despair, or to make the proposal which, in concert with the other neutral Powers, my noble Friend made—not for another line, but that an arbiter should be appointed to whom should be referred the 656 question pending between the parties. That arbiter might have determined on the line of the Schlei, or the line of the Apenrade, or he might have determined on some other line. But, unless my noble Friend had been prepared to abdicate his functions, it was impossible for him to say that he would make no other proposal with a view to a peaceful settlement of the matters in dispute. I may take advantage of this Question to explain another misunderstanding which has arisen. My noble Friend stated in another place the other day that henceforward no trust could be reposed in the German Powers. That statement, I know, has hurt the feelings of the persons concerned, and has been interpreted in a way not intended by my noble Friend. He by no means intended to say that any assertion and any declaration of the German Powers was not trustworthy, inasmuch as it was not given truthfully or with a sincere intention; but what he meant—as, indeed, the context of his statement clearly shows—was that the German Powers have upon more than one occasion been driven from their original intention by a pressure which they were unable to resist, and that, therefore, you could not be sure that any intention, however sincerely and truthfully stated at the time, was one that the German Powers would be able to maintain against the pressure which might be brought to bear against them. That was my noble Friend's meaning: and he, like myself, is very sorry that the words spoken should have been interpreted in a different sense, and should have given pain to parties for whom my noble Friend and the Government are naturally disposed to show the greatest possible consideration and respect.
§ MR.NEWDEGATEDid I understand the noble Lord to say that the line of the Schlei and Dannewerke was the line proposed by Earl Russell and supported by the neutral Powers?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONYes; that appears on the Protocols.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.