which loves, enjoys, and cherishes liberty, but which at the same time fears lest that inestimable jewel should be wrenched out of its hands by overweening force—­if there be such a State, and there may be such a State in the East and in the West—­then I will venture to say that in that State, from the highest to the lowest, from sovereign to subject, joy and satisfaction will have been diffused by the intelligence of these memorable days.

BENJAMIN DISRAELI

JULY 4, 1864

DENMARK AND GERMANY

Mr. Speaker,—­Some of the longest and most disastrous wars of modern Europe have been wars of succession.  The Thirty Years’ War was a war of succession.  It arose from a dispute respecting the inheritance of a duchy in the north of Europe, not very distant from that Duchy of Holstein which now engages general attention.  Sir, there are two causes why wars originating in disputed succession become usually of a prolonged and obstinate character.  The first is internal discord, and the second foreign ambition.  Sometimes a domestic party, under such circumstances, has an understanding with a foreign potentate, and, again, the ambition of that foreign potentate excites the distrust, perhaps the envy, of other Powers; and the consequence is, generally speaking, that the dissensions thus created lead to prolonged and complicated struggles.  Sir, I apprehend—­indeed I entertain no doubt—­that it was in contemplation of such circumstances possibly occurring in our time, that the statesmen of Europe, some thirteen years ago, knowing that it was probable that the royal line of Denmark would cease, and that upon the death of the then king, his dominions would be divided, and in all probability disputed, gave their best consideration to obviate the recurrence of such calamities to Europe.  Sir, in these days, fortunately, it is not possible for the Powers of Europe to act under such circumstances as they would have done a hundred years ago.  Then they would probably have met in secret conclave and have decided the arrangement of the internal government of an independent kingdom.  In our time they said to the King of Denmark, ’If you and your people among yourselves can make an arrangement in the case of the contingency of your death without issue, which may put an end to all internal discord, we at least will do this for you and Denmark—­we will in your lifetime recognize the settlement thus made, and, so far as the influence of the Great Powers can be exercised, we will at least relieve you from the other great cause which, in the case of disputed successions, leads to prolonged wars.  We will save you from foreign interference, foreign ambition, and foreign aggression.’  That, Sir, I believe, is an accurate account and true description of that celebrated treaty of May, 1852, of which we have heard so much, and of which some characters are given which in my opinion are unauthorized and unfounded.