and to stand up for the rights of the people between the Eider and the Königs Au! He would vote against the resolution of the Commission, and for the amendment, because the former did not go far enough for him. When of two parties to a contract the one had clearly and manifestly violated such contract, the other party was released from it, and he considered, therefore, that Prussia's honour obliged her to take this view of the case. It was impossible to abide by the Dietal Resolution of 1852.

M. Mathis was followed by M. de Bentkowski, a member of the Polish fraction.

The speaker said he would raise his voice in favour of an oppressed nationality, and in the name of the fraction he represented he would place on record the sympathies of the Poles for the oppressed inhabitants of Schleswig. He was desirous of not disturbing the harmony of the present debate by invidious parallels between the case of the Schleswigers in Schleswig and the Poles in the Duchy of Posen. He and his party would do their best to bring about a unanimous vote on this question; nor could he doubt of such a result.

The speaker then drew a lively picture of an oppressed nationality in the abstract, every word of which was intended to convey the speaker's view of the action of the Prussian administration in Posen, and to establish the parallel he had commenced his speech by so carefully guarding against.

"When a state of things such as I have now described," he continued, "exists, be it in Hungary, be it in Poland, be it in Italy, our votes will ever be given in the sense they will be to-day. We will vote, Gentlemen, on such a point with a yet warmer feeling than you, for we have ourselves gone through the school of the bitterest affliction-that of national oppression; an affliction which may God avert from you and your children's children!"

Here the speaker's voice became so affected that he was for some time unable to proceed.

Count Schwerin, the Minister of the Interior, was not slow to take up the challenge thrown to him by the Polish fraction, and indignantly repudiated the parallel drawn between the two cases. In Schleswig the avenues of right and justice were closed against the oppressed. In Posen they were open, and whenever a Polish grievance was made known it received a patient and careful examination, and in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred it turned out to be unfounded.

Besides, that Chamber existed for the Poles as well as for the rest of the Monarchy, and in it they could bring their griefs to the light of publicity. Right and justice would ever be awarded to Poles as well as to Germans, but against specific Polish agitation the Government would act, and act with energy.

M. de Reichensperger, the leader of the Catholic party, gave, in the name of his party, his adhesion to the Resolution of the Committee.

Caplan Berg treated the subject at length, and specially called attention to the action of the great Powers in 1848-52, 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.

After some more unimportant speakers had been heard the debate was adjourned to the following day.

No. 18.

(Extract.)

Consul-General Ward to Lord J. Russell.—(Received May 9.)

Leipsic, May 7, 1860.

HAVING perused the debates upon the Schleswig question in the Prussian House of Representatives on the 3rd and 4th of this month, I take the liberty of submitting to your Lordship the observation, that the result of those debates differs in one material point from the recommendation of the Committee noticed in my despatch of the 3rd instant.

The motion made to the House in accordance with the Report of the Committee was, "That the Government should be required to ascertain how far the conditions stipulated with Denmark in the negotiations of 1851 and 1852 in

F

respect of the Duchy of Schleswig (not mentioning Holstein) have been carried out, and, if not, that the fulfilment of those conditions, as guaranteed by the Crown of Prussia (not mentioning the other German States), be at last enforced;" whereas, the Resolution adopted was as follows:-"The House of Representatives, in referring the Petitions now before it to the Executive Government, declares its expectation that the Government, in concert with its German Allies, will omit nothing in order to help the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein at last to the full enjoyment of their much violated rights.

The insertion of the words "in concert with its German Allies " will make it impossible for Prussia to proceed alone in this matter; and although there is no reason to suppose that Austria, or any other Federal State, differs from the views of Prussia in regard to the Schleswig-Holstein question, it is obvious that the action of the Germanic Confederation must be much slower and less efficient than if Prussia were to adopt an independent course of action.

The introduction of the word "Holstein" into the Resolution seems unimportant, since the Federal Diet has long been occupied with the affairs of that Duchy, as every one knows.

No. 19.

My Lord,

Lord Bloomfield to Lord J. Russell.-(Received May 12.)

Berlin, May 8, 1860. I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith, for your Lordship's information, a further Report upon the proceedings in the Prussian Chambers, containing an account of the close of the debate upon the Schleswig petition.

Report of the Adjourned Debate on the Schleswig-Holstein Question in the House of Representatives.

THE debate on the petition respecting Schleswig was renewed on Friday the 4th instant.

M. de Carlowitz, the mover of the Amendment given at the commencement of my former Report, was the next speaker on the list.

"We stand once more," he said, "at the sick bed of the German nation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made a difference between the cases of Schleswig and Holstein, in reference to the competence of the Diet, the case of the latter merely involving a German question, whilst the treatment of the former involved a European question. I cannot, as regards any practical results, see a difference between the two. I perceive that Denmark has treated with the same contempt, or at least with pretty nearly the same contempt, the Resolutions of the Diet with regard to Holstein, as she has done her engagements with regard to Schleswig. She has done so because she knows right well that there is something rotten in the state of Germany, and that she has to do with the sick man of the West,' the German Diet. He did not agree with the Resolution of the Commission, because he considered that no previous inquiry was required to prove that the engagements taken by Denmark had been violated. The statement of the Foreign Minister in the Committee had said as much. He had, therefore, proposed his amendment. The initiative in the matter must of course be left to the Government. The duty of the House was to strengthen the hands of the Government, and assure it of support if it went in the right direction.

"As regarded the amendment of M. de Blankenburg, that the steps taken by Prussia should be taken in conjunction with her German confederates, he would observe that if the member for Naugard meant thereby, that when the time for action came, the Prussian Cabinet was bound to secure for such action the co-operation of the other Governments of Germany, he was perfectly agreed with it. If, on the other hand, the honourable member meant, by his sub

amendment, to exclude the independent action of Prussia as a European Power, and to bind that action to the steps the Diet might choose to take in the matter, then he utterly dissented from it.

"Could the House believe that anything was to be hoped for from the Diet for Schleswig-Holstein? If he had had any doubt upon the subject before, what he had read an hour ago in the papers would have removed that doubt. He had, namely, learnt that Prussia's proposition at Frankfort for a reorganization of the Federal army had not found one single supporter.

"The Diet, it was true, had on one or two occasions broke into a canter on the question of the Duchies, but it was only to sink afterwards into a yet more hopelessly torpid state.

"What the House, therefore, has to recommend to the Government is, to watch the political horizon of Europe for any opportunity which may present itself for asserting and vindicating the just rights of the Duchies, and when such an opportunity has presented itself, then to seize it with all energy and resolution, and to trust to the co-operation of the Germanic nation.

"If the House accepts the sub-amendment of the leader of the Feudal fraction in this sense, then let it support it; if not, not."

M. de Blankenburg then rose. His speech, which was too long to admit of being even fairly analysed, was of importance on two points :

First, as placing on record the adhesion of the Feudal party to the national principle involved in the Schleswig-Holstein question.

Secondly, as giving him and his party the opportunity of interpellating the Government as to whether the views of the Ministry with respect to the position of Prussia to the Diet were identical with those of MM. de Carlowitz and Vincke, and, in fact, the majority of the House.

He asked permission to read a speech delivered in a German Parliamentary Assembly, the author of which he would only afterwards name, for fear of prejudicing the House against it.

This speech, which it turned out, had been spoken by Dr. Stahl, the leader of the Party in the House of Nobles in 1857, was an eloquent appeal in favour of the legitimate rights of the Duchies as trampled upon by the triumph of the Revolutionary and Democratic Party at Copenhagen, and contained an exposé of the relation in which the Feudal Party had stood towards the question in its earlier stages.

As regarded the meaning to be attached to his sub-amendment, the speaker wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not mean to say that under no circumstances Prussia had the right to move in the matter as an independent Power, and that he guarded himself against the possible interpretation of his proposal "as only meaning that only a majority of the Diet had to decide upon this Dietal question." What he did mean was, to protest, under present circumstances, against placing a burden on the shoulders of Prussia alone, which she was by no obligation bound to bear alone.

To the arrangement of 1852 the other German Powers and Austria in the very first line were parties, and he could not see why the opportunity should be withheld from Austria, who was so desirous of being German, to fulfil her obligations in the matter.

And this led him to a very serious matter, namely, to the attitude taken in this debate, as well as in the former one, by MM. de Carlowitz, de Vincke, and their friends, as regarded the policy of Prussia in the Confederation.

The impression left by these Debates necessarily led to this question being asked: "Does the majority of the House of Representatives, and with it the Prussian Ministry, mean to announce either that the Diet no longer exists, or that Prussia must secede from the Diet, or that Austria must be thrust out of it? It is to elucidate this question," the speaker continued, "that I have proposed my sub-amendment; and I hope that the opportunity thus afforded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be used by him to explain himself fully and distinctly on the subject."

In reply to this interpellation Baron Schleinitz rose and said that although, in presence of notorious facts, it was hardly necessary for him to do so, he would, nevertheless, declare that the Government did not share the opinions expressed by Baron Vincke respecting the Diet. The Government recognized the present organ of the Confederation as existing both de facto and de jure ("nicht blos als factisch sondern als rechtlich bestehend"). More general expla

nations with respect to the German policy of the Government his Excellency thought unnecessary, as this policy had already been abundantly explained.

Baron Vincke, as usual, reserved himself for the conclusion of the debate, and critized approvingly or disapprovingly, as opportunity offered, the speeches of friends and foes.

The House then came to a division which yielded a result, I believe hitherto unprecedented, of a unanimous vote of the 305 members present in favour of the Carlowitz amendment, as modified by the Blankenburg sub-amendment.

(Extract.)

No. 20.

Mr. Paget to Lord J. Russell.—(Received May 14.)

Copenhagen, May 9, 1860. THE discussion in the Prussian Chambers on the petition presented from Schleswig has produced a considerable impression on the Danish Government.

M. Hall, whom I saw this afternoon, spoke to me in terms of great discouragement respecting it, and said it had greatly added to the difficulties of the situation.

This was the first time, his Excellency observed, that the reunion of Schleswig and Holstein had been openly avowed as the aim and object which Germany, or rather Prussia, had in view; and now that the Holstein States were assured of the support of this Power in holding out for these terms, it would appear almost useless to make any fresh proposals.

His Excellency said it was his intention to send a circular despatch to the Representatives of Denmark accredited to the Powers who signed the Treaty of London, refuting, on the most incontestable authority, the assertions set forth in the petitions, and explaining at length the position of Denmark towards the Duchies and the Confederation.

(Extract.)

No. 21.

Lord A. Loftus to Lord J. Russell.-(Received May 14.)

Vienna, May 10, 1860.

IN reply to my inquiry this day, Count Rechberg informed me that the Prussian Government had made a communication to the Imperial Government on the question of Schleswig-Holstein, inviting their co-operation with a view to induce the Danish Government to fulfil the terms of their engagement respecting Schleswig entered into 1852.

The Imperial Government, Count Rechberg stated, were perfectly willing, as proposed by the Cabinet of Berlin, to join them in a friendly communication to the Government of Denmark, calling their attention to the non-fulfilment of their promises as regards the Duchy of Schleswig, and requesting them to provide a remedy for the just complaints of the population of that Duchy, in so far as those complaints were founded on an infraction of the engagements taken by Denmark towards the German Powers by the Treaty of 1852.

Under that Treaty, said Count Rechberg, the Danish Government engaged not to incorporate Schleswig into the Monarchy, to maintain intact the separation which had always existed between Schleswig and Denmark, and not to render Schleswig Danish.

As long as the question pending between Germany and Denmark related merely to Holstein, it was a question of a merely German character; but when the question extended itself to Schleswig, it became European.

(Extract.)

No. 22.

Lord Bloomfield to Lord J. Russell.-(Received May 21.)

Berlin, May 19, 1860. IN the course of a conversation which I have just had with Baron Schleinitz his Excellency mentioned his having received a communication from Copenhagen, animadverting on the late debates in the Prussian House of Representatives on the subject of Schleswig, and observed that the terms employed by the Danish Government to express their dissatisfaction at the proceedings of the Chamber, and at the language held by himself on this occasion, were not calculated to improve the relations of the two countries, for it would be impossible for him to leave the Danish despatch unanswered.

On referring to the policy of the Prussian Government on this question Baron Schleinitz said that they could never do less than hold steadily to the engagements contained in the notes of 1852, which may be said to have acquired the force of a Treaty, and that it was grievous to hear almost every day of acts committed by the Danish authorities in Schleswig, which were in absolute opposition to the spirit of the understanding entered into between Germany and Denmark, for they bore anything but the character of conciliation towards the German element in that Duchy.

My Lord,

No. 23.

Mr. Paget to Lord J. Russell.-(Received May 25.)

Copenhagen, May 20, 1860.

I HEAR from one of my colleagues that M. Hall addressed a despatch yesterday to the Danish Minister at Berlin, with reference to the recent discussion in the Prussian Chamber on the affairs of Schleswig.

M. Hall informed me, in an interview I had with him not long since, of his intention to do this, as it was impossible, he said, for the Danish Government to pass unnoticed the accusations of bad faith which had been made against them, or to give a tacit assent to the right of interference in Schleswig assumed by the Prussian Minister for Foreign Affairs.

While expressing to M. Hall my hope that he might be able to prove satisfactorily that the complaints against the Danish Government were unfounded, I strongly urged his Excellency to couch his observations in the most moderate language, and to say nothing which would be likely to add still further to existing complications.

No. 24.

I have, &c.

M. Hall to Baron Brockdorf.-(Communicated to Lord J. Russell by M. de Bille, May 31.)

M. le Baron,

16 Mai, 1860.

LA Chambre des Députés de Prusse s'est plû récemment à faire entrer dans le domaine de ses débats les affaires du Duché Danois de Slesvig, et à la date du 4 de ce mois elle a pris une Résolution "par laquelle en transmettant au Gouvernement du Roi les pétitions soumises à la Chambre, elle exprime la confiance que celui-ci, de concert avec ses confédéres, ne négligera rien pour procurer enfin aux Duchés de Slesvig et de Holstein la pleine jouissance de leurs droits outragés."

Si le Gouvernement du Roi a pris connaisance de ces débats avec une bien grande surprise c'est avec une véritable douleur qu'il voit l'attitude que le Cabinet Prussien a affectée dans cette occasion.

Le Gouvernement de Prusse n'a pas trouvé un seul mot pour désapprouver le ton de ce sdébats si inconvenant et si profondement blessant pour une Puissance amie et alliée, pas une seule rectification ou une simple expression de doute à l'égard des outrages à la vérité qui s'y sont produits. Bien au contraire son