No Englishman can hope, within the limits of a lifetime, to unravel to the last complication the tangled skein of Schleswig-Holstein history, of Schleswig-Holstein politics. But we shall endeavour to throw light on certain prominent points of the controversy, which are these-1. The nature of the connection between Schleswig and Denmark. 2. The nature of the connection between Holstein and Denmark. 3. The origin. and validity of the claim set up by the democratic party in the duchies, and strongly supported in Germany, that the provinces could not and should not be separated. 4. The extent of the rights and obligations which England had incurred by treaty in reference to Schleswig-Holstein, and the manner in which these were recognised and fulfilled. But first, for the sake of clearness, a few geographical and statistical details may properly be given. Continental Denmark consisted, before the war of 1864, of four provinces-Jutland, in the extreme north; Schleswig, to the south of Jutland, bounded on the south by the river Eyder; Holstein, between the Eyder and the Elbe; and Lauenburg, a small province to the east of Holstein, lying between it and Mecklenburg. The population of the monarchy in 1860 was as follows:Denmark proper (including the islands) 1,600,551 Schleswig Holstein Lauenburg Total 409,907* 2,605,024 The language and nationality of Denmark proper are wholly Danish; in Schleswig, the population is pretty nearly divided between those who speak Danish and those who speak German, the former occupying the northern, the latter the southern districts of the duchy. Holstein and Lauenburg are wholly German. In religious profession there was no difference of any moment throughout the Danish monarchy; Lutheranism was the prevailing creed for Danes and Germans alike. 1. Let us now trace back to its origin the connection of Schleswig with Denmark. Charlemagne, the Nimrod of the dark ages, the great conqueror and civiliser of his day, carried his arms beyond the Eyder, and made of Schleswig a Danish mark, or march—that is, one of the outer and limitary provinces of his empire. Henry the Fowler, about the year 940, restored and strengthened this march. But the Emperor Conrad the Salic, in 1927, restored Schleswig to the Danes, handing it over to King Knut, the Canute of English history. Since that time the Eyder has been the northern boundary of Germany and of the Reich, or Holy Roman Empire, according to the ancient saying, "Eydora finis Romani imperii.” From this period dukes ruled in Schleswig, holding it as a fief of the Danish crown. In the thirteenth century, the Danish crown having passed to another family, a long period of conflict between kings and dukes commenced, in the course of which the dukes naturally looked out for external help, and received it from the Counts of Holstein, the German province on their southern border. At last, through an usurpation-for there is no evidence that the arrangement was sanctioned by the Danish crown-the duchy reverted to a Count of Holstein, claiming through one of his ancestors, Count Gerhard the Great, whom several intermarriages with the ducal house, and the failure of direct heirs to the Schleswig dukes, had placed in a sort of hereditary nearness to the ducal title. This was in 1375. Queen Margaret of Denmark recognised accomplished facts, and, in 1386, invested the Count of Holstein, who belonged to what is called the Rendsburg line, with the duchy of Schleswig, to be held as a military fief of the Danish kingdom. Thus the Count-Duke, while still owing allegiance to the German empire in respect of Holstein, did homage to the sovereign of Denmark for the duchy of Schleswig. It is emblematic of the vitality of feudal usages and arrangements that this complicated plan of government, though much modified as time went on, remained substantially in force till 1864. After 1386, the union between Schleswig and Holstein was never entirely broken. The Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein had a troubled time for many years. It was a favourite project of theirs to subjugate the brave Ditmarshers on the west coast, and one of them, Duke Gerhard VI., lost his army and his life on such an expedition. There were terrible family feuds also, and great confusion, during which a feudal court at Nyborg (1413) declared Schleswig to have lapsed to the crown of Denmark, and the German Emperor Sigismund ratified the award. But, in 1440, the then *The composition of the population of Schleswig, with reference King of Denmark re-invested Duke Adolf with the duchy of Schleswig-Holstein, as a direct hereditary fief” (Zu einem rechten Erblehn). Duke Adolf died in 1459, and with him the male line of the Rendsburg house became extinct. This is the most critical epoch of SchleswigHolstein history. to nationalities, is a question of great importance, and one on which extraordinary mis-statements have been made. The Chevalier Bunsen, in his memoir addressed to Lord Palmerston, in 1848, describes the population of Schleswig as amounting to 700,000, of whom about 150,000, along the northern frontier, were of Danish origin. But the most trustworthy authorities that can be obtained represent the proportions very differently. According to the (Danish) Royal Almanack of 1854 (see Knight's "English Cyclopædia"), the population of the duchy of Schleswig then amounted to 363,000 persons, thus distributed in respect of language: 363,000 A mixed dialect-half Danish, half German. 66 For, in 1448, Duke Adolf's eldest nephew, Count Christian of Oldenburg, had been raised to the throne of Denmark, and soon after, probably not without some pressure from his uncle, he confirmed a constitution, first made in 1326, to the effect that Schleswig should never be united to the Danish crown. Moreover, when, by Adolf's death, the ducal throne was vacant, the Land-rath or Estates, of Schleswig-Holstein, with whom by ancient The numbers given in the text are taken from the "Annual Register" constitutional right the choice of a new ruler rested, met for 1863. in 1460, and elected their late Duke's nephew, Christian I., A.D. 1864.] CONNECTION OF SCHLESWIG WITH DENMARK. King of Denmark, to be their Duke, "not as a King of It may be said-and often has been said by German 81 tian I. reigned in Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein for more than four hundred years, from 1460 to 1863. The indivisible union which the arrangement of 1460 guaranteed to Schleswig and Holstein was soon infringed. Appanages had to be created by Kings of Denmark for their younger sons, and the readiest way of effecting this was to split up their feudal dominions into portions. Thus we find Schleswig, in the sixteenth century, divided into three duchies-that of Sonderburg and Segeberg (with which went the western part of Holstein), that of Gottorp (with which went eastern Holstein, including Kiel), and that of Haderslev. The King-Duke Frederic II. actually parti tioned off a part of his duchy, viz., Sonderburg, to his younger brother (1564); but the Estates refused to recognise a fourth lord; so that the Sonderburg line could exercise only a limited and precarious sovereignty. The family of the Dukes of Haderslev became extinct in 1580; and now Schleswig owned but two lords-one the King of Denmark, representing the main stem of the house of Oldenburg, who was lord of royal or Segeberg-Schleswig; the other the Duke of the younger or Gottorp branch of the same house. The dominions of the first now began to be called Schleswig-Holstein-Glückstadt, the capital having been transferred to the new city of Glückstadt; those of the second were known as Schleswig-HolsteinGottorp. These two states remained in being till 1773; and as quarrels between the Duke and King-Duke were frequent, and the Estates common to all Schleswig-Holstein tended all the while to become weaker and weaker in political power, the times being everywhere favourable to the encroachments of absolutism, the Glückstadt portion and the Gottorp portion grew more and more like distinct and independent states, and the much talked of union between Schleswig and Holstein became more and more shadowy and imperfect. For because some part of Schleswig in each case was united to some part of Holstein, it cannot seriously be argued that the pledge that Schleswig and Holstein should be indivisible remained unbroken. If a charter of Edward I. had guaranteed that Wales should remain indissolubly united with England, and two distinct states had afterwards been formed, one comprising North Wales with England north of Shrewsbury and Derby, the other South Wales with the rest of England, who would gravely maintain that the charter continued to be observed? Yet this is what the Germans maintain in the case of royal Schleswig and ducal Schleswig. In England, parliamentary institutions survived the searching trials of the seventeenth century, but we know the victory was not obtained without fighting. On the continent, absolutism engaged in similar contests and usually carried the day. Thus, in 1616, the Estates abandoned their old right of electing their lord, and consented that the succession should be regulated by the law of male primogeniture. The last ordinary Land-tag, or Diet of Estates, The descendants in the male line of this King Chris- for the whole of Schleswig-Holstein, met in 1675, but *Such must be the meaning of the words "holden an gudeme vrede, dat se bliven ewich tosamende ungedelt;" and it is a very different thing from " promising that they shall remain together undivided for ever," which is the sense that, so far as we have seen, all advccates of the German case have attached to the words. separated almost immediately, owing to dissensions be tween the King and Duke. Since then there has been no common assembly for the affairs of both duchies; their union has consisted chiefly in their having a common system of law, a common military establishment, and certain important social institutions in common, that, for the act of homage of 1721 was sufficient to effect a change instance, of the Schleswig-Holstein knights. In 1658 and 1660, constitutions were promulgated by the King of Denmark, abolishing the feudal relationship between Denmark on the one hand and the Gottorp and Glückstadt duchies on the other, and ceding to each duchy full and absolute sovereignty. We ask again, who can pretend that the so-called indissoluble union between Schleswig and Holstein-so far as a large portion of them, including Kiel, was concerned-had not been broken, after the cession of full sovereign rights to the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp? The country which enjoys full sovereign rights is politically independent of every other country. Therefore, between 1660 and 1713 (the year in which the Gottorp duchy was annexed by Denmark), one half of Schleswig and one half of Holstein, being formed into a sovereign and independent state, were practically disunited from the other halves of the two duchies. Up to this time the succession, in the kingdom no less than in the duchies, had been confined to male heirs. But, in 1665, a Lex Regia was passed in Denmark which opened the succession to that kingdom to female heirs in case of the failure of the male line. Whether a similar change in the law of succession ever was in fact, or could be in right, introduced in Schleswig, is a question on which a great deal turns, and about which Danes and Germans are at variance. That the change could not be introduced into Holstein, no one disputes; for Holstein was a state of the German Reich, and in all German states the principle of the exclusion of females from the succession was unalterably fixed. Well, then, say the Germans, as the Holstein succession could not be opened to females, and as Schleswig and Holstein are by right indissolubly united, therefore the Schleswig succession could not be opened to females. This is simple enough, if the political indivisibility of the two duchies were so impregnable, both in fact and theory, as the Germans represent it; but we have shown that the case is far otherwise. The Danes allege, on their side, that when, in 1721, the prelates, knights, cities, and magistrates of what had been ducal Schleswig (Holstein-Gottorp) assembled on the summons of King Frederic IV. to do homage to him as their new sovereign, they swore to maintain the succession in the entire duchy of Schleswig "secundum tenorem legis regia"-according to the tenor of the Lex Regia. This Lex Regia, say the Danes, was the statute of 1665 admitting females to the Danish succession; so that the inhabitants of Schleswig, in this act of homage, assented formally to the introduction of the same rule of succession into their own duchy. Against this Chevalier Bunsen argues—(1) That the Lex Regia referred to may have been some other statute—the King's letter of summons, for instance (but this is surely inadmissible), or the statute of 1650 introducing primogeniture; (2) that whatever the words mean, the succession in Schleswig, owing to its union with Holstein, could not be altered. On the whole, the Danes appear to make out a very strong case in regard to the Schleswig succession, and to prove that, if * * Memoir of the Chevalier Bunsen above cited. (a point of law which would require a special discussion), the succession in Schleswig was then conformed to that which since the passing of the Lex Regia had been in force in the kingdom. But we have been anticipating a little the course of the narrative. In the wars which arose out of the restless ambition of Charles XII., the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp sided with Sweden, while Denmark and Holstein-Glückstadt took part with the Czar Peter. After many turns of fortune, the cause which Denmark had espoused triumphed, and, in 1713, the King of Denmark took possession of the whole of the Gottorp duchy. Peace was made in 1720, and the Holstein portion of the duchy was restored to the vanquished Duke; but the Schleswig portion (ducal Schleswig) was retained by the King and incorporated with his own-the reyal-portion. In his letters-patent of August 22nd, 1721, the King described ducal Schleswig as an in difficult times in irregular wise from the crown of Denmark severed appurtenance." By a treaty, signed July 23rd, 1720, England and France guaranteed to the King of Denmark and his heirs the continual and peaceable possession of ducal Schleswig. Bunsen urges that the object of this guarantee was to secure Denmark against any attempt which might be made by the Gottorp line to recover the lost portion of Schleswig; and that when that line renounced all its claims both to Schleswig and Holstein, the guarantee fell to the ground. But, although the apprehension of claims from the side of Gottorp was doubtless the occasion of the treaty, yet the terms in which it is expressed are sweeping and unconditional. England undertakes "to guarantee and maintain the King of Denmark and his heirs in the continual and peaceable possession" of the annexed territory. Duke Charles Frederic, whom we have seen to be despoiled of his share of Schleswig, married the daughter of the Czar Peter the Great, and his son succeeded to the Russian throne as Peter III. From the union of this Peter with the too notorious Catherine of AnhaltZerbst there was born a son, the Grand Duke Paul, for whom, while still a minor, his mother arranged, in 1773, a renunciation of the Holstein portion of the Got torp duchy (which his grandfather, as we have seen, had been allowed to retain in 1720), and of all dormant claims and rights whatsoever over the Schleswig portion of the duchy, "in favour of the King of Denmark and of his heirs and successors to the royal throne." In exchange for this renunciation, Paul received from the King of Denmark the duchy of Oldenburg. Holstein, as a German state, could only go to male heirs; but the suc cession in Schleswig was a different matter; and Grüner,* the celebrated German publicist, admits that this renunciation lets in the female line of Denmark in ducal Schleswig. After 1773, there is nothing in the relations between Denmark and Schleswig that need detain us until we come down to our own times. The old Estates having • Quoted by Chevalier Bunsen. A.D. 1864.] SCHLESWIG AND HOLSTEIN: THE GERMAN CLAIM. long before come to an end by desuetude, Frederic VI., in 1831 and 1834, granted separate constitutional chambers to Schleswig and Holstein, by which they were accepted and worked till February, 1848. After 1835, the probability of the extinction of the male line of the house of Oldenburg, through the eventual death without issue of Frederic, only surviving son of Christian VIII., became stronger with each succeeding year. To keep the Danish monarchy together became, therefore, the one paramount object of Danish statesmanship. At first the Danish court thought of persuading or bribing the Duke of Sonderburg-Augustenburg, representing the younger branch of the elder or royal line of the house of Oldenburg, to whom, if females were excluded, both Schleswig and Holstein would descend at the failure of male heirs in the royal line, to resign his right to the succession. This plan was abandoned by Christian VIII., who appointed a special commission to examine the ancient laws, treaties, and other historic documents in the Danish archives. The result of the commission appeared in the King's letters-patent of 8th July, 1846, in which Christian VIII. stated it as his firm conviction that, so far as Schleswig was concerned, in consequence of the letters-patent of 1721, and the homage then done, the succession in Schleswig was now the same as in Denmark, and that he should exercise and maintain his right accordingly; while, in regard to Holstein, or certain parts of it, there existed certain facts militating against an equally positive opinion. 2. The relations of Holstein to the Danish monarchy are simple, and will not detain us long. The county of Holstein was from the first a German province, and came to be united with Schleswig through marriages between the ruling families. This union, as we have seen, was first effected in 1375. After the election by the people of the duchy and county of King Christian of the house of Oldenburg to be their lord, in 1460, Holstein remained united with Schleswig until the partitions among the princes of that house already described, and afterwards so far as those partitions did not disunite them. In 1474, Holstein was raised to the rank of a duchy. Between 1720 and 1773, it was divided into two states-one of which, having Kiel for its capital, and now absolutely disunited from Schleswig, remained in the hands of the Gottorp princes; the other, with Glückstadt for its capital, was attached to Schleswig, and belonged to the King of Denmark. In 1773, the Grand Duke Paul made the renunciation which has already been described; and since that time Holstein has formed one state, united to Schleswig, and ruled by the King of Denmark, but still a member of the Bund or confederation of German states, and as such represented by the King's ambassador in the German Diet. As the prospects of the extinction of the male line of Oldenburg drew nearer, the Danish court had little hope of preserving its hold over Holstein, which, as a German duchy, could only go to a male heir. That heir was ready at hand, in the person of the Duke of Angustenburg, who was lineally descended from the ancestor of the Sonderburg, or younger branch of the royal line of the house of Oldenburg. In 1846, Christian VIII. in his letters-patent hinted, as we have seen, that the case as regarded the succession in Holstein was obscure. But an outcry was raised at this, and the King hastened to make reassuring declarations, both in the Diet and to the people of Holstein. 3. We are now in a position to form an opinion upon the validity of the claim advanced in Germany, and in the German portion of the duchies, that Schleswig and Holstein should remain for ever indissoluble. If by this claim it be merely meant that there always has been, and always ought to be, some kind of connection between Schleswig and Holstein, that may readily be admitted. Ever since the charter of 1460 the two duchies have undoubtedly held much in common-their public law, for instance, several valuable privileges and immunities as against the Danish Kings, and various social institutions. But thus much, or more, they might easily retain in common, even though Schleswig were politically incorporated with Denmark, and Holstein had a separate constitution, or were even annexed to another state. For the purposes of the German argument, it must be shown that a true political union has generally subsisted, and ought of right to subsist, between Schleswig and Holstein. In order to prove this, the Germans point to the original charter of 1460, conceding, as they say, the indivisibility of the two lands, and to the numerous confirmations of that charter given by Danish Kings, down to the last confirmation by Frederic VII. in 1848. On the other hand, it may be urged-1. That (as already explained) the original charter does not promise, on the part of the King of Denmark, that the lands shall be undivided for ever, but only that he will "maintain them in peace, that they may remain or, so that they remain-" undivided for ever." If the first rendering were the true one, any King of Denmark consenting to the separation of Schleswig and Holstein would break the charter. But, according to the true meaning of the actual words, if circumstances beyond his control compelled a King of Denmark to promote the separation, though his wish would have been frustrated, his word would not have been broken. 2. The charter being so understood, the various confirmations of it must be understood in the same way, and no argument in favour of the indivisibility of the lands can be founded on them. 3. Actual political separation, as regards large portions of the duchies, was the rule rather than the exception during more than three centuries, say, from about 1470 to 1773: and during the latter portion of that time eastern Holstein was, in a political sense, wholly disconnected from Schleswig. 4. Holstein being a member of the German Bund, while Schleswig was not, whatever path the exigencies of German politics might force the former to enter, it does not follow that the latter should be forced to enter the same; on the contrary, its close connection with Denmark since 1027 would suggest that in case of an incompatibility, Schleswig should go with Denmark rather than with Holstein. On the other side, it must be fully conceded that a strong community of interests and sympathies had subsisted for centuries between the German speaking popu lations of the two duchies, and that their desire to remain in union was deserving of every respect and con- the Danish view, that female succession is admissible in sideration. Chevalier Bunsen alleges that, before 1848, Schleswig, has, to say the least, a great deal in its favour. even the Danish population of Schleswig leaned rather to And the practical conclusion to be drawn is this-that Holstein than to Denmark; but this point seems doubt- England, when she guaranteed to Denmark, in 1720, the ful. If public and general manifestations of sorrow are peaceable possession of ducal Schleswig, was justified in to count for anything, the grief of the Schleswig Danes doing so, and that she would not have abetted illegality at being severed from the little kingdom, in 1864, was or oppression had she maintained that guarantee with all deep-seated and sincere.* her strength as a nation when Schleswig was invaded and The sum of our analysis of the whole question may be violently separated from Denmark in 1864. thus expressed. Chevalier Bunsen, following the King of Prussia in his letter of the 24th March, 1848, to the Duke of Augustenburg, enunciates the German view in the following articles : 1. That the duchies are independent states. 2. That these states are indivisibly united. 3. That male succession is alone permissible in either. Of these articles, the first is admitted by all parties. With regard to the second, the resumé of the facts that we have attempted shows that it is either untrue or highly doubtful. On the third article, we have shown that "Annual Register" for 1864, p. 240. To resume the narrative of events. In the ferme which arose in every capital of Europe after the Revol tion in Paris of February, 1848, a violent Danish nation feeling manifested itself at Copenhagen, and forced King, Frederic VII., to issue a proclamation declaring Denmark and Schleswig were thenceforth to form an separable union under a common free constitution. duchies, incited by a strong democratic and national fe ing that had arisen in Germany, regarded this proclam tion as a breach of their constitution, and broke out i The "Constitution of Waldemar" (1326) provided that duchy of Schleswig should never be united to the Danish crown, |