DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16873#0006
Vol. XLVI.]
INTRODUCTION
[January to June, 1861.
PAGE
now necessary, whetner it might not have been prevented by more astute
and skilful management. 1 think I have shown some reasons why the
country should look with suspicion on the foreign policy of the present
Government. I looked with some suspicion on it last year. I thought I
observed in it uncertainty, inconsistency, a variance between the courses
recommended by different Ministers, which seemed to portend the greatest
of all evils—namely, indecision in the treatment of our allies. Her
Majesty’s Government throughout this particular business of Germany and
Denmark, has been like a certain Prince—not of Augustenburg or Gliicks-
burg—but that unfortunate Prince of Denmark who was infirm of purpose—
‘ The times are out of joint, oh, cursed spite,
That ever we were born to set them right! ’
But you are Ministers to set them right, and I protest against your coming
to Parliament in a critical state of affairs without a policy. If you have a
policy, let it be brought forward fairly and candidly; but do not come
masked or visored here without our knowing whether in your opinion the
claims of Denmark are just or the claims of Germany can be defended. Let
us know what is the opinion of the Government; and I more particularly
wish to know the opinion of the Government, because what occurred in the
recess is not such as to induce or authorise an Opposition to give a blind
confidence on a question of foreign policy.”
The Dano-German question continued for some time to
occupy the attention of the House, and it may be as well to
state in extenso how that matter stood at the commencement
of the year as recorded in the Annual Register.
“At the beginning of the year Germany was still formally at peace with Den-
mark. On the last day of 1S63 the Prince of Augustenburg was received
at Kiel by the Commissioners who administered the Federal Execution in
Holstein. The Danes had, by the advice of the English Government, with-
drawn from a province which they had neither the legal right to defend
against the representatives of the Diet nor the physical power to hold. If
their relative weakness had been better understood, they would have been
advised also to evacuate Schleswig, and they would have accepted the com-
paratively moderate terms which were still offered by the great Powers.
During the early part of January, Austria and Prussia were denounced by
the Liberal party throughout Germany as enemies of the national cause.
At that time both the great Powers recognised the rights of Christian IX.
to the entire Danish monarchy, under the Treaty of 1852. They demanded
from Denmark the immediate repeal of the common Constitution of the
Kingdom and of Schleswig, and they proposed to the Diet that in case of
refusal the Duchy should be occupied as a guarantee for the required con-
cession. The minor States, under the guidance of the Saxon Minister,
Baron Beust, insisted on immediate war, and, for the first time since the
creation of the Confederacy, they outvoted Austria and Prussia in the Diet.
The vote of the Diet determined both the Great Powers to assert their
political supremacy in Germany, and in the course of a fortnight they
concentrated on the frontier of Schleswig a powerful army, which crossed the
Eider on the last day of January. After a few skirmishes the Danish troops
evacuated the celebrated line of the Dannewerk, falling back upon the
fortified position of Diippel, opposite the little island of Alsen. The Austrian
Generals, who had taken the chief part in the opening combats of the cam-
paign, proceeded to occupy the northern portion of Schleswig, and a part of
Jutland, while the Prussians, aided by an Austrian contingent, formed the
siege of Diippel.
“ Such was the position of affairs when the Session of Parliament com-
menced. On the 8th of February Viscount Palmerston, in answer to
questions from Lord Robert Cecil, said that our Government had remon-
strated with the Prussian and Austrian Governments on their proceedings
in Holstein and Schleswig in regard to the Duke of Augustenburg, which
were inconsistent with the good faith by which under the Treaty of 1852
they were bound to maintain the integrity of Denmark. The Prussian
Government had stated that they disapproved of the proceedings in
Schleswig, and orders had been issued from Berlin to put matters right.
With regard to Holstein that Duchy was occupied by troops acting under the
authority of the Diet, and therefore not under the immediate authority of
the King of Prussia. The Prussian Government had not denied the positive
declaration that they intended to abide by the Treaty of 1S52. The meaning of
the despatch was not very clear, but the conclusion of it implied that what-
ever questions might arise, the Prussian and Austrian Governments were
prepared to discuss them in concert with the other parties to that Treaty.
It was alleged in Berlin that if resistance were made in Schleswig it would
lead to war, and that war put an end to treaties. That was a most prepos-
terous doctrine, and if it were once established, any strong Power which had
an inconvenient Treaty with a weak Power would have nothing to do to free
itself from that engagement but to make an unprovoked and unjustifiable
attack, and theD to say war had broken out, and that, therefore, they were
free from the engagement. The Prussian Government had, however, subse-
quently announced that it would abide by the Treaty of 1S52.
A few days later Lord Palmerston declared, “that an
invasion of Jutland by Austrian and Prussian forces would be
an aggravation of that violent outrage and injustice which
they had committed in entering Schleswig.
“ In less than ten days from the first entry of the allies
Into the Duchy of Schleswig, the whole of the main land,
with the exception of the fortified position of Diippel, had
fallen into their hands, and before that position the Prussians
sat down to carry on a siege in form. Earl Russell, who,
some time before, had vainly endeavoured to induce France,
Russia, and Sweden to join with England in affording mate-
rial assistance to Denmark, now directed his efforts to brine:
about a Conference between the representatives of the Powers
concerned. His attempts were at first ineffectual, but at
length, early iu March, the noble Lord was enabled to announce
that a Conference, though without an armistice, bad been
assented to by the belligerents. It was appointed to meet for
the first time on the 12th of April in Loudon. Meantime,
however, the allied troops had invaded Denmark proper. The
Prussian troops first crossed into Jutland. This movement
on their part excited considerable irritation in England,
and questions were put to the Ministers iu both Houses
respecting it. Earl Russell stated, in answer to the Eart
of Malmesbury, that Austria and Prussia had declared that
the entry of their troops into Jutland was solely for strategic
objects. Lord Palmerston made a similar announcement
in the other House, adding that those Powers had declared
that they would adhere to the Treaty of 1852, and would
respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. He stated
also, in reply to Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, that the only
basis on which the Powers who signed the Treaty of 1852
could act in the impending Conference was the maintenance
of the integrity of the Danish monarchy.”
The Austrian fleet having made a movement towards the
Baltic, Lord Russell said in reply to Lord Shaetesbury,
who had suggested the propriety of a British fleet being sent
thither :—
“ All be could say was, that Ministers would consult according to their
own opinions the honour and interest of the country. But they would not
make a war when the safety, interest, integrity, and independence of
Denmark could be secured otherwise, and they would not neglect any means
by which that security and independence could be maintained. With regard
to the question put to him by his noble friend respecting the fleet, he had to
state that it had been ordered to one of the home ports, where it was within
reiVh, and instructions might at once he conveyed to it if that were neces-
sary, and he should not expect that any fleet of Austria or Prussia would
venture to encounter the squadron of Her Majesty.”
The proceedings of the Conference did not commence until
April 25, in consequence of the non-arrival of the Plenipoten-
tiary of the Diet, and not until the 6th of May had the Danish
and German representatives agreed to a suspension of hosti-
lities for one month, commencing on the 12th of May, but the
good faith of Prussia in observing the stipulation was much
mistrusted in this country. The subject continued to he
warmly debated in both Houses, and Lord Ellenborough
having urged Ministers to pursue a truly British policy, Lord
John said:—
“ The noble Earl has referred to the policy of George the Third ; but it
should not be forgotten that when George the Third entered into a war
with America, a noble Member of the Cabinet said the Americans were a
parcel of cowards, and we could easily subdue them. But by that war we
lost £100,000,000, and thirteen colonies. So too in our efforts to destroy the
French republic and to restore the monarchy, we lost £500,000,000 and
oceans of blood were shed. ' The noble Earl,’ continued Lord Russell,
‘ has also referred to another matter which he might well have spared. He
has referred to the advice which Her Majesty’s Ministers have given to Her
Majesty. Now, however much Her Majesty, like other persons, may have
been influenced by private affection—connected as she has been by marriage
with a German prince—and however much she is connected by her
daughter’s alliance with German families, Her Majesty's great object has
been to maintain, intact, the honour, the high reputation, and the interests
of this country, and on every occasion Her Majesty has most willingly
followed the counsels of her Ministerial advisers, and adopted the resolu-
tions which they had come to.’ Therefore, for anything that had been done
Her Majesty's advisors were responsible, ana if there had been any abandon-
ment of the interests of Europe which we were bound to look to, ‘ it (said
the noble Lord) is upon the head of Her Majesty's adrisevs that censure must
INTRODUCTION
[January to June, 1861.
PAGE
now necessary, whetner it might not have been prevented by more astute
and skilful management. 1 think I have shown some reasons why the
country should look with suspicion on the foreign policy of the present
Government. I looked with some suspicion on it last year. I thought I
observed in it uncertainty, inconsistency, a variance between the courses
recommended by different Ministers, which seemed to portend the greatest
of all evils—namely, indecision in the treatment of our allies. Her
Majesty’s Government throughout this particular business of Germany and
Denmark, has been like a certain Prince—not of Augustenburg or Gliicks-
burg—but that unfortunate Prince of Denmark who was infirm of purpose—
‘ The times are out of joint, oh, cursed spite,
That ever we were born to set them right! ’
But you are Ministers to set them right, and I protest against your coming
to Parliament in a critical state of affairs without a policy. If you have a
policy, let it be brought forward fairly and candidly; but do not come
masked or visored here without our knowing whether in your opinion the
claims of Denmark are just or the claims of Germany can be defended. Let
us know what is the opinion of the Government; and I more particularly
wish to know the opinion of the Government, because what occurred in the
recess is not such as to induce or authorise an Opposition to give a blind
confidence on a question of foreign policy.”
The Dano-German question continued for some time to
occupy the attention of the House, and it may be as well to
state in extenso how that matter stood at the commencement
of the year as recorded in the Annual Register.
“At the beginning of the year Germany was still formally at peace with Den-
mark. On the last day of 1S63 the Prince of Augustenburg was received
at Kiel by the Commissioners who administered the Federal Execution in
Holstein. The Danes had, by the advice of the English Government, with-
drawn from a province which they had neither the legal right to defend
against the representatives of the Diet nor the physical power to hold. If
their relative weakness had been better understood, they would have been
advised also to evacuate Schleswig, and they would have accepted the com-
paratively moderate terms which were still offered by the great Powers.
During the early part of January, Austria and Prussia were denounced by
the Liberal party throughout Germany as enemies of the national cause.
At that time both the great Powers recognised the rights of Christian IX.
to the entire Danish monarchy, under the Treaty of 1852. They demanded
from Denmark the immediate repeal of the common Constitution of the
Kingdom and of Schleswig, and they proposed to the Diet that in case of
refusal the Duchy should be occupied as a guarantee for the required con-
cession. The minor States, under the guidance of the Saxon Minister,
Baron Beust, insisted on immediate war, and, for the first time since the
creation of the Confederacy, they outvoted Austria and Prussia in the Diet.
The vote of the Diet determined both the Great Powers to assert their
political supremacy in Germany, and in the course of a fortnight they
concentrated on the frontier of Schleswig a powerful army, which crossed the
Eider on the last day of January. After a few skirmishes the Danish troops
evacuated the celebrated line of the Dannewerk, falling back upon the
fortified position of Diippel, opposite the little island of Alsen. The Austrian
Generals, who had taken the chief part in the opening combats of the cam-
paign, proceeded to occupy the northern portion of Schleswig, and a part of
Jutland, while the Prussians, aided by an Austrian contingent, formed the
siege of Diippel.
“ Such was the position of affairs when the Session of Parliament com-
menced. On the 8th of February Viscount Palmerston, in answer to
questions from Lord Robert Cecil, said that our Government had remon-
strated with the Prussian and Austrian Governments on their proceedings
in Holstein and Schleswig in regard to the Duke of Augustenburg, which
were inconsistent with the good faith by which under the Treaty of 1852
they were bound to maintain the integrity of Denmark. The Prussian
Government had stated that they disapproved of the proceedings in
Schleswig, and orders had been issued from Berlin to put matters right.
With regard to Holstein that Duchy was occupied by troops acting under the
authority of the Diet, and therefore not under the immediate authority of
the King of Prussia. The Prussian Government had not denied the positive
declaration that they intended to abide by the Treaty of 1S52. The meaning of
the despatch was not very clear, but the conclusion of it implied that what-
ever questions might arise, the Prussian and Austrian Governments were
prepared to discuss them in concert with the other parties to that Treaty.
It was alleged in Berlin that if resistance were made in Schleswig it would
lead to war, and that war put an end to treaties. That was a most prepos-
terous doctrine, and if it were once established, any strong Power which had
an inconvenient Treaty with a weak Power would have nothing to do to free
itself from that engagement but to make an unprovoked and unjustifiable
attack, and theD to say war had broken out, and that, therefore, they were
free from the engagement. The Prussian Government had, however, subse-
quently announced that it would abide by the Treaty of 1S52.
A few days later Lord Palmerston declared, “that an
invasion of Jutland by Austrian and Prussian forces would be
an aggravation of that violent outrage and injustice which
they had committed in entering Schleswig.
“ In less than ten days from the first entry of the allies
Into the Duchy of Schleswig, the whole of the main land,
with the exception of the fortified position of Diippel, had
fallen into their hands, and before that position the Prussians
sat down to carry on a siege in form. Earl Russell, who,
some time before, had vainly endeavoured to induce France,
Russia, and Sweden to join with England in affording mate-
rial assistance to Denmark, now directed his efforts to brine:
about a Conference between the representatives of the Powers
concerned. His attempts were at first ineffectual, but at
length, early iu March, the noble Lord was enabled to announce
that a Conference, though without an armistice, bad been
assented to by the belligerents. It was appointed to meet for
the first time on the 12th of April in Loudon. Meantime,
however, the allied troops had invaded Denmark proper. The
Prussian troops first crossed into Jutland. This movement
on their part excited considerable irritation in England,
and questions were put to the Ministers iu both Houses
respecting it. Earl Russell stated, in answer to the Eart
of Malmesbury, that Austria and Prussia had declared that
the entry of their troops into Jutland was solely for strategic
objects. Lord Palmerston made a similar announcement
in the other House, adding that those Powers had declared
that they would adhere to the Treaty of 1852, and would
respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. He stated
also, in reply to Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, that the only
basis on which the Powers who signed the Treaty of 1852
could act in the impending Conference was the maintenance
of the integrity of the Danish monarchy.”
The Austrian fleet having made a movement towards the
Baltic, Lord Russell said in reply to Lord Shaetesbury,
who had suggested the propriety of a British fleet being sent
thither :—
“ All be could say was, that Ministers would consult according to their
own opinions the honour and interest of the country. But they would not
make a war when the safety, interest, integrity, and independence of
Denmark could be secured otherwise, and they would not neglect any means
by which that security and independence could be maintained. With regard
to the question put to him by his noble friend respecting the fleet, he had to
state that it had been ordered to one of the home ports, where it was within
reiVh, and instructions might at once he conveyed to it if that were neces-
sary, and he should not expect that any fleet of Austria or Prussia would
venture to encounter the squadron of Her Majesty.”
The proceedings of the Conference did not commence until
April 25, in consequence of the non-arrival of the Plenipoten-
tiary of the Diet, and not until the 6th of May had the Danish
and German representatives agreed to a suspension of hosti-
lities for one month, commencing on the 12th of May, but the
good faith of Prussia in observing the stipulation was much
mistrusted in this country. The subject continued to he
warmly debated in both Houses, and Lord Ellenborough
having urged Ministers to pursue a truly British policy, Lord
John said:—
“ The noble Earl has referred to the policy of George the Third ; but it
should not be forgotten that when George the Third entered into a war
with America, a noble Member of the Cabinet said the Americans were a
parcel of cowards, and we could easily subdue them. But by that war we
lost £100,000,000, and thirteen colonies. So too in our efforts to destroy the
French republic and to restore the monarchy, we lost £500,000,000 and
oceans of blood were shed. ' The noble Earl,’ continued Lord Russell,
‘ has also referred to another matter which he might well have spared. He
has referred to the advice which Her Majesty’s Ministers have given to Her
Majesty. Now, however much Her Majesty, like other persons, may have
been influenced by private affection—connected as she has been by marriage
with a German prince—and however much she is connected by her
daughter’s alliance with German families, Her Majesty's great object has
been to maintain, intact, the honour, the high reputation, and the interests
of this country, and on every occasion Her Majesty has most willingly
followed the counsels of her Ministerial advisers, and adopted the resolu-
tions which they had come to.’ Therefore, for anything that had been done
Her Majesty's advisors were responsible, ana if there had been any abandon-
ment of the interests of Europe which we were bound to look to, ‘ it (said
the noble Lord) is upon the head of Her Majesty's adrisevs that censure must