§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDSir, I wish to put a Question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government of which I have given him notice. It has reference to the reply made by the noble Lord a few nights ago in the House with regard to the question of a Conference on Danish affairs, and also to the statement of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary on the same subject in another place. On Tuesday last the noble Lord the First Minister, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, stated that proposals had been made for a Conference on the present state of the Danish question, there being no cessation of hostilities in the meantime, but the only basis laid down being the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark. That proposition, the noble Lord added, was made with the assent and concurrence of Russia and France. At the very same moment that the noble Lord was speaking here, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in another place gave an account of the present condition of affairs, not only inconsistent with, but almost totally contradictory to that given by the noble Lord in this House. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said that, though there had been such a proposition as that stated by the noble Lord the First Minister, the proposal then before Her Majesty's Government, and communicated by them to the Danish Government, was this — that there should be a suspension of hostilities, that the belligerent Powers should in the meantime retain possession of all those portions of the country which they then occupied, conditional on the acceptance by Denmark of certain points as bases of negotiation. These points, as we learn from abroad, are a personal union between the Crown of Denmark and the Duchies, and an indissoluble union between Schleswig and Holstein. That account of the matter received confirmation from the noble Lord, because he said that the points laid down by the Prussian and Austrian Governments were more unfavourable to Denmark than the arrangement made in 1851 and 1852. At the same time, the noble Lord stated that he had not communicated this proposa1 to the Governments of France and Russia, for he deemed it desirable, in the first instance, to ascertain the opinion of 1829 the belligerent Powers. I would beg leave to point out the extreme inconvenience of information being given in the two Houses of Parliament of so entirely contradictory a character. I wish to ask the noble Lord, On what bases the proposal of a Conference really has been made; whether it is understood that there is to be a cessation of hostilities; and, if so, whether it is to be conditional on the acceptance by Denmark of certain points; whether the noble Lord will communicate to the House what these points are on which the Conference is made conditional by the two German Powers; whether the noble Lord will state whether, in the opinion of the Government, these points are consistent with the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Denmark; whether the noble Lord adheres to the statement that these proposals were made with the assent of France and Russia; or whether the case is, as the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary is reported to have stated, that these proposals have not been communicated to these Powers?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, I am not at all surprised that there should be some misapprehension on a subject so complicated as the Danish question, and the answers given to inquiries which I may, perhaps, be pardoned for saying had better not be put, because those answers relate to negotiations which are going on with various Powers holding different views on the matter. Therefore, I do not at all wonder that the hon. Gentleman should in his question have mixed up things which are in themselves distinct. What I stated, or at least meant to state, was that we had vainly tried to obtain the consent of the belligerents to an armistice as a preliminary to a Conference, because each party required conditions for that armistice which the other would not agree to. I said that therefore Her Majesty's Government had deemed it so important that negotiations should be begun, that they had proposed to the belligerent Powers that there should be a Conference without an armistice j that that proposal had been made to Austria and Prussia, who had agreed to it; and that it had also been made to Denmark, from whom we had not yet received an answer, and one is still wanting at this moment. I mentioned that we had reason to believe—good reason to believe—that France, Russia, and Sweden would concur in such a Conference, but that no positive question or communication had been made to them on the subject, or could be made 1830 until it had been ascertained that the belligerents consented to the matter. Then I stated that whereas England, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden all concurred in admitting the validity of the Treaty of 1852, and the obligation which it imposed of maintaining the integrity of Denmark, the parties who would assemble in the Conference would necessarily all stand upon that basis; but that no formal basis had been proposed, because in fact we had no knowledge that the two parties would agree to a Conference. When the Conference meets, the bases of negotiation will be arranged. That is what I stated, and what the hon. Member must have confounded with my answer, are the opinions which from time to time have been expressed by the different parties. It is well known that at different periods of the negotiations Prussia especially has intimated its opinion that there should be an administrative union between the two Duchies, Schleswig and Holstein, and that they should be connected with the rest of Denmark by the link of the Crown. But that is not a basis of negotiation, nor is it a matter upon which the English Government has ever expressed its opinion—yes or no. It is one of the points which, of course, would have to be discussed by each party according to its views and interests when the negotiations had commenced. We know that the Danish Government has objected to it, and we know also that other Governments have agreed to it. I do not think there is any contradiction between what I have stated and that which my noble Friend has stated in the other House of Parliament. If the hon. Member will look attentively at the Report, I think he will see he is in error. I have not myself looked at the Report, but I am persuaded that, as my noble Friend and I are perfectly agreed as to the facts of the case, it is quite impossible that we could make any statements that should essentially differ the one from the other.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDI am sorry to trouble the noble Lord and the House, but I wish to clear up a point which appears to be involved in some confusion. I have examined the Report to which the noble Lord referred me, and I find Earl Russell is distinctly represented to have said that the basis of the Conference was a cessation of hostilities conditional upon the acceptance of certain terms. What I want to know is, whether we are to understand that that is not the 1831 case, and that Earl Russell has been misreported if he is represented to have said so.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONWhat the hon. Gentleman alludes to must have been some statement with regard to the original proposal of an armistice preliminary to a Conference. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: No.] The present proposal is a Conference without a cessation of hostilities, because it appears to us reasonable to think that if a Conference were once assembled, and if the representatives of the different Powers concerned were met round a table, the first subject of inquiry would be whether an armistice or cessation of hostilities might not be agreed to; and I should hope, too, that the parties might be able to find some terms of agreement satisfactory to all.