forces.  The King of Denmark never fulfilled the engagements into which he then entered, partly, I have no doubt, from negligence.  We know that it is not the habit of mankind to perform disagreeable duties when pressure is withdrawn, but I have no doubt, and I believe the candid statement to be, that it arose in a great degree from the impracticable character of the engagements into which he had entered.  That was in the year 1851.

In 1852, tranquillity being then entirely restored, the treaty of May, which regulated the succession, was negotiated.  And I may remind honourable members that in that treaty there is not the slightest reference to these engagements which the King of Denmark had entered into with the Diet of Germany, or with German Powers who were members of the Diet.  Nevertheless, the consequence of that state of affairs was this, that though there was no international question respecting Denmark, and although the possible difficulties which might occur of an international character had been anticipated by the treaty of 1852, still in respect to the King of Denmark’s capacity as Duke of Holstein and a sovereign German prince, a controversy arose between him and the Diet of Germany in consequence of these engagements, expressed in hitherto private and secret diplomatic correspondence carried on between him and certain German Courts.  The House will understand that this was not an international question; it did not affect the public law of Europe; but it was a municipal, local, or, as we now call it, a federal question.  Notwithstanding that in reality it related only to the King of Denmark and the Diet of Germany, in time it attracted the attention of the Government of England and of the ministers of the Great Powers, signatories of the treaty of 1852.  For some period after the treaty of 1852, very little was heard of the federal question and the controversy between the Diet and the King of Denmark.  After the exertions and exhaustions of the revolutionary years, the question slept, but it did not die.  Occasionally it gave signs of vitality; and as time proceeded, shortly—­at least, not very long—­after the accession of the present Government to office, the controversy between the Diet and the King of Denmark assumed an appearance of very great life and acrimony.

Now, Her Majesty’s Ministers thought it their duty to interfere in that controversy between the German Diet and the King of Denmark—­a controversy strictly federal and not international.  Whether they were wise in taking that course appears very doubtful.  My own impression is, and always has been, that it would have been much better to have left the federal question between the Diet and the King to work itself out.  Her Majesty’s Ministers, however, were of opinion—­and no doubt there is something to be said in favour of that opinion—­that as the question, although federal, was one which would probably lead to events which would make it international, it was wiser and