HC Deb 09 February 1864 vol 173 cc325-8
MR. DISRAELI

I wish to make an inquiry of the noble Lord the First Minister with respect to an answer which he gave yesterday, which has occasioned considerable perplexity. It was with reference to an inquiry as to whether the Court of Berlin had notified to our Government that, in consequence of the state of war between Prussia and Denmark, it no longer held itself bound by the Treaty of 1852. The noble Lord, as I understood him, seemed to intimate that no such communication had been received by our Government from the Court of Berlin; but at the same time he expressed his opinion, and the opinion of the Government upon such a course of conduct had it been pursued by the Prussian Government. The noble Lord said that he should look upon such a proposition as most unjust and monstrous. [An hon. Member: Preposterous.] Preposterous—a word of nearly the same significance. But the Question asked yesterday was not as to the morality of such conduct, but as to its legality. Having heard the noble Lord's opinion of its morality, I wish to know whether he is of opinion, or whether we are to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are of opinion, that, in consequence of the war between Prussia and Denmark, Prussia may be relieved from the undertakings which by the Treaty of 1852 she has entered into with this country and with the other signataries of that treaty; or whether those engagements on the part of Prussia are not totally independent of any relations which may subsist between Prussia and Denmark? There is another matter referring almost to the same subject, and certainly to the answer given, by the noble Lord yesterday, on which I should like to have some information. The noble Lord seemed in that answer to intimate that the German Powers had announced that, when the invasion of the Duchies had been completed, they should be prepared to evacuate those Duchies as soon as all the causes—the avowed causes—for which the invasion had taken place were removed, and their object effected. What I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government, as a second inquiry, is, Whether, before the invasion of the Danish Duchies took place—an event of which due notice was given to the world—Her Majesty's Government obtained from the Governments of Austria and Prussia any undertaking that when these Duchies had been invaded and occupied, when the avowed objects of the invasion were obtained, they would restore the Duchies to the King of Denmark?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I think that what I stated—at all events, what I meant to state—yesterday was, that a notion had been broached in Germany and in some quarters at Berlin, that if a state of war should be established between Prussia and Austria and Denmark, that would release the two former Powers from the engagements of the Treaty of 1852. I stated my opinion upon that point; but I meant to say, or to imply, that that was not the doctrine upon which Austria and Prussia at present take their stand, inasmuch as they have declared, by that paper which was read here and in the other House of Parliament, that they acknowledge the binding nature of the Treaty of 1852, and adhere to the intention of maintaining the integrity of the Danish monarchy. It is therefore clear that they do not contend that their hostilities with Denmark have released them from their engagements under that treaty. But I entirely concur with the view which I infer that the right hon. Gentleman takes; that, even if that condition of things existed between Denmark and the two Powers which could be rationally called war, and which if the engagements had been contracted simply between these two Powers and Denmark, might and would have put an end to that treaty, still the Treaty of 1852 was not a treaty concluded simply between Austria and Prussia on the one hand, and Denmark on the other, but was an engagement which they entered into, in common with the other Powers who signed and the Powers and States who acceded to that treaty, and that they could not be relieved from that common engagement by anything which may take place between them separately and Denmark. That opinion I found not simply upon the reason of the thing. There is a case precisely in point. The five Powers entered into a treaty with Turkey by which they agreed to respect the neutrality of the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and that no ships of war of any of the Powers should enter those straits without the special permission of the Porte, and then only under certain restrictions as to number and force. The ratifications of that treaty were exchanged with Turkey, and not among all the Powers who signed it, just as in the case of the Treaty of 1852 the ratifications were exchanged in London between each of the Powers and Denmark, and the Powers did not go through the unnecessary form of exchanging ratifications with each other. When the British fleet entered the Dardanelles at the commencement of the Russian war, Austria protested against that act as a violation of the common engagement which by the treaty regulating the passage of the Dardanelles was taken by all the Powers. An answer was given, which in our opinion was sufficient; but that proved that in the opinion of Austria herself a general engagement taken by many Powers towards one was binding upon all who took it—not simply between each and the party concerned, but as with respect to all the parties with whom that engagement was taken.

MR. DISRAELI

The answer of the noble Lord leads me to inquire—first, whether what is called the despatch read the other night—a document which, I believe, the House found very ambiguous, and which was treated with derision by the Secretary of State—is the last and only evidence which the Government possesses of the intention of Austria and Prussia to uphold the Treaty of 1852? I also take the liberty to remind the noble Lord that he has omitted to answer the last question I put to him.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I had just discovered my unintentional omission, and was about to answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question. The despatch to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is the last official communication of Austria and Prussia, but I consider it complete as an acknowledgment of the treaty, and of the obligation to maintain the integrity of the Danish monarchy. I was going to say that I unintentionally omitted to answer the last question of the right hon. Gentleman. We have obtained no guarantee from Austria and Prussia that they will evacuate Schleswig when the constitution is revoked. But we have this assurance—they are two Powers who must think their character for good faith is of some value, and the ground—the only ground—on which they have entered Schleswig, and occupied it as a material guarantee, is to obtain the revocation of the constitution of November, so far as regards Schleswig. I cannot but believe, therefore, that when that demand shall have been complied with, they will feel bound in honour and good faith to given up the occupation.