§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYI have given notice to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) by a private note, that I would put a Question to him this evening with respect to the state of affairs in Denmark. I think I need make no apology for this course. Under the circumstances, we are not obliged to wait for the papers, which, in due course, the noble Earl will, no doubt, lay on the table; for really events succeed each other so hurriedly, the future becomes the present and the present the past, with such rapidity, that it is impossible for us to follow all those forms which are usual in these matters in a deliberative assembly. I think, too, that your Lordships will think I am justified in addressing a few words to you on this subject, inasmuch as it is my name which stands at the foot of this much discussed treaty. I wish to state to the House what took place then, inasmuch as in some of the Ministerial journals, supposed to carry great weight with them, statements have been made which misrepresent the real facts. When my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) came into office at the end of Feb- 303 ruary, 1852, the Foreign Office had been held by my noble Friend—not now present—the President of the Council (Earl Granville), who succeeded to Lord Palmerston on his retirement from office at the end of December. The whole of the negotiations which led to this treaty had been carried on by the Government of which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) was the head, and Lord Palmerston Foreign Secretary. All the negotiations with respect to the sense and text of the treaty had been concluded by the end of 1851, and little remained to Lord Granville but to arrange some of the details. A great deal has been said with respect to the Diet not having been consulted with regard to the treaty in the same manner as other Powers. It is fair to Lord Granville to say, that he did express an opinion that it would be better to get the assent of the Diet; but he was told, and it was constantly repeated to me afterwards, that a reference to the Diet would make the business interminable. Those were the words used; in fact, I have found them in my notes, both by Minister Bismark and Minister Manteuffel. The consequence was, that the idea was completely abandoned, the English Government saying that though they put it forward as a suggestion, they did not require it to be done. It then remained for me only to settle the question of the renunciation by the Duke of Augustenburg. It was evidently very desirable that this renunciation should be obtained, because it was evident that if the Duke renounced his claims for himself and his family, it would not be of such consequence to obtain the assent of the German Diet. On the 4th of May, four days before the treaty was signed in London, the Duke of Augustenburg agreed to terms. Minister Bismark, now the Prime Minister of Prussia, and who is responsible for all that is going on now, as far as Prussia is concerned, was the person who negotiated the arrangement with the Duke of Augustenburg, proposed conditions to him, and made himself and the King of Prussia arbitrators, as it were, on the question. The Duke of Augustenburg was to receive a large sum of money, equal to a sum of £350,000 English money, and in the name of himself and his family he agreed never again to molest the succession in Denmark, as regulated by the treaty. My Lords, I cannot conceive any agreement more solemn than that. Not only was the agreement signed, as many others are, but the Duke thanked 304 the English Government for the part which they had taken in getting that sum of money, for without us he never would have got it, and besides that he promised privately, as well as publicly, that he would maintain the treaty. The first instalment of that sum of money was paid, and I believe the others have been paid regularly at specified times. At that time and during our whole tenure of office we never heard a word of a protest from himself or from his son, the present claimant. The son was more than twenty-four years of age, and he was fully cognizant of what was taking place. If he had protested, or if he had made any objections to the conditions which were proposed to his father, he knew that that sum of money would never have been obtained. Something has been said and written by the noble Earl opposite, with respect to the King of Denmark not having fulfilled the pledges he had given. I agree with the noble Earl that the King of Denmark was bound, as a point of honour, to keep the pledges he then made, and I believe there will be found at the Foreign Office a despatch of mine to that effect. But what shall we say on the point of honour to the Duke of Augustenburg's son, after this sum of money had been conceded, setting fire to this combustible matter, and being, in fact, the first cause of the present stale of things? My Lord, that was the whole part which I took in the treaty. I have always considered it a most useful one in an European sense, and I have not changed my opinion. In 1858 my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) came into office again, and we found the Germans in a great state of excitement on this same question. The Danes did not seem extraordinarily sincere in keeping their promises, and there was a great deal of correspondence and conversation going on in Germany on the subject. During the summer of that year it became my duty to be in attendance on Her Majesty at Berlin; and I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that in all the conversations I had with leading persons there—some of them Ministers of other German States—I never allowed those conversations to pass without insisting, most distinctly, that any interference in Schleswig on these matters must be a European, and not merely a German question. I wrote, too, from Berlin to Mr. Seymour FitzGerald, who remained at the Foreign Office, desiring him to see the Austrian and Prussian Ambassadors, and 305 to impress that upon them. I never found any German statesman during the whole of Her Majesty's stay, pretending for a moment that Germany had any right to interfere in Schleswig on account of the matter in dispute. I am afraid Her Majesty's Government have allowed this to slide from a European question into a German question. It would appear from the latest accounts that the Danes have been defeated; and Schleswig is, I believe, occupied by the Austrians and the Prussians. Under these circumstances I wish to ask the noble Earl, opposite these questions, whether Her Majesty's Government have obtained any guarantee from Austria and Prussia that they will evacuate Schleswig as soon as the Constitution of November is withdrawn? I also wish to know from the noble Earl, whether, in the event of those Powers thinking their treaty obligations abrogated with regard to Denmark, they hold those obligations to be still valid with regard to the other parties to the treaty? I ask this question in consequence of some statements which have appeared in German newspapers, and which are supposed to have been made on something like official authority. Lastly, I wish to know, whether Her Majesty's Government hold Austria and Prussia still bound by their treaty with Great Britain to maintain the integrity of the Danish monarchy?
§ EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I think nobody can find fault with the noble Earl for explaining the part he took with reference to the Treaty of 1852; and I have never heard that any one ever blamed the noble Earl for his conduct with regard to this question while holding the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It seems to me that finding this great business of the treaty nearly completed, and finding, which I believe was the case, that almost every Power, if not every Power concerned, thought the treaty ought not to be referred to the German Diet, no one could blame the noble Earl for his part in the conduct of the negotiations. And it appears to me now, as it did at the time when the treaty was made, that it was one which, if duly observed, would be very useful in assisting to maintain the balance of power in Europe. The noble Earl has asked me two or three questions; but before I reply to them I must observe that he has taken an erroneous view when he says, Her Majesty's Government have allowed this affair of Schleswig-Holstein, from a European, to become a German question. On the 306 contrary, we always maintained, and I think it has hardly been denied by the most hot-headed partisan of the German Diet, that the question of Schleswig-Holstein must be considered an international question. Schleswig being no part of the German Confederation, any question of the obligations of Denmark towards Schleswig, must be considered as an international question, in which the other Powers of Europe have a right to take part. That being the case, the noble Earl asks me whether we have any guarantee that when the Constitution which was enacted in November last is repealed, Austria and Prussia, who have undertaken the invasion of Schleswig, will then leave that Duchy? In answer to that question, I have to say that we have received no guarantee from Austria and Prussia. With regard to the other question—whether the treaty is considered abrogated as regards the other Powers?—I must, in the first place, say I cannot consider that the treaty would be in any way abrogated by the state of war so far as regards the other Powers who signed it. It is quite impossible that a treaty which was made with France, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden, would be abrogated as regards those Powers by war between Austria and Prussia on the one side, and Denmark on the other. No such argument has been put forward, but every analogy and every principle militate against the supposition. There is an analogous case—that of the treaty which was signed with the great Powers of Europe and the Ottoman Porte, in 1841, with respect to the opening of the Dardanelles. That treaty was signed by the different Powers who made it with Turkey alone, and with Turkey alone the ratifications were exchanged, as in this case of the Treaty of 1852 the ratifications were exchanged with Denmark alone; but the different Powers have held each other bound, towards one another as well as towards the Porte, to respect the treaty; and when in 1849 it was a question with respect to Her Majesty's fleet, which was alleged to have entered the Dardanelles and violated the treaty, the representative of Austria made a protest to the effect that such a proceeding was a violation of the engagement of 1841, that being an engagement made with several Powers. So much as to the general principle of the law of nations with regard to this case. But as I understand the answer which has been given to us by the representatives of Prussia and Austria, 307 these Powers admit that the Treaty of London is binding on them. I ought, perhaps, to refer to the occasion on which the question was asked of Prussia and Austria. It is reasonable, when any Power goes to war, that other Powers who may suppose themselves concerned in the result should ask the object of the war, for the purpose of seeing to what points the operations are to be limited, and whether any treaty may be affected by them. In that sense it was that the question of Her Majesty's Government was directed to be asked at Berlin with respect to the menaced invasion of Schleswig; and in the despatch written by M. de Bismark to Count Bernstorff on the 31st of January in answer to my question, and communicated to me on the 4th of February, it is stated—
The Government of the King, by basing on the stipulations of 1851–52 the rights which in concert with Austria it is proceeding to enforce upon Denmark, has by this very act recognized the principle of the integrity of the Danish monarchy as established by the transactions of 1851–52. The Government of the King, in proceeding to the occupation of Schleswig, do not intend to depart from this principle.The same statement is made by Count Rechberg on behalf of the Austrian Government in a despatch of the same date. Your Lordships will observe that those words were used at a time when it was intended by Prussia and Austria to invade the territory of Denmark. It was known that there was to be an invasion, and it was also perfectly well known that the Danish Government and the Danish army meant to resist the invasion; so that to say this was an assurance given in time of peace, and that it is rendered null and void by an act of war which took place the next day or so, would be simply ridiculous. An anonymous writer may put forward such statements, but to think that any Government could do so appears to me quite impossible. I may remark that in the despatches to which I have just referred the Prussian and Austrian Governments intimate, that in the event of certain contingencies named therein—namely, the persistence of the Danish Government in its refusal to accomplish its promises of 1852, or the armed intervention of other Powers in the Dano-German conflict—other demands might be made by Prussia and Austria; but at the present time we need not discuss what these demands might be, because those contingencies have not arisen. No doubt Austria and Prussia are deeply bound by the engagements of the Treaty of London; 308 and I should hold that, even in the event of those contingencies occurring, they would be bound towards the Powers who were parties with them in that treaty—to Great Britain, to France, to Russia, and to Sweden—to maintain and respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. That I consider to be the effect of the declaration of Austria and Prussia, and certainly that is the opinion of the British Government. The noble Earl was understood to say, that with regard to the papers they would be produced, but he feared it would be some time before he could place them on the table.
§ The EARL of DERBYThe answers given by the noble Earl to the questions of my noble friend have been clear and distinct, and on the whole satisfactory; but there was one point in the speech of my noble Friend near me which my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary omitted to go into as fully as I could have wished. I was sorry to hear the answer of the noble Earl, that Her Majesty's Government have not obtained any guarantee from Austria and Prussia that, on compliance with their demands on the Danish monarchy, they would withdraw from Schleswig. I repeat, I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government have not obtained such a guarantee; but I hope that their not having obtained it has not arisen from their not having asked it. I hope they have not only asked, but pressed for such a guarantee.
§ EARL RUSSELLHer Majesty's Government have not specially asked for a guarantee; but they have always assumed, that when the Constitution is repealed the Austrian and Prussian troops will evacuate Schleswig.
§ Afterwards—
THE EARL OF CARNARVONBefore this discussion closes I am anxious to ask a question of the noble Earl (Earl Russell) with reference to an expression in the course of his statement which was not, I think, wholly satisfactory. The noble Earl said that the correspondence with regard to the Danish Question could not be laid before Parliament for some time to come. I quite agree with my noble Friend who introduced this discussion, that one event succeeds another with such rapidity that very often these despatches are of little effect; but there is in the present case this reason why these papers should be produced with as little delay as possible, that the whole position of affairs is really determined by the statements made and the pledges given by the Government in these despatches. 309 What was the understanding in the House on the first night of the Session? The impression among your Lordships and in the country certainly was, that the Government, by interfering in these delicate negotiations, had brought such an amount of pressure to bear upon Denmark, that she had consented to make sacrifices and surrender points, both in a political and a military sense, which were of vital consequence to her; and that we were thus in honour and good faith bound to support Denmark against Germany. The noble Earl denied that such was the case. We were bound, of course, to accept the assurances which the noble Earl gave, and to wait for the production of the papers; but until those papers are produced, the House is placed in a very embarrassing position. Everything—the policy of the Government in the past and the position of the country in the future—depends upon the statements which the Government have made to Denmark, and the assurances they have given; and the contradictory and perplexing statements which go forth abroad—some official and some semi-official, sometimes affirming, sometimes denying the accuracy of what is said here—render no explanation satisfactory until we can see the papers. I cannot understand why there should be any difficulty in laying them before the House. It is not necessary that the correspondence should be entirely complete; but the House ought to be aware of what has taken place up to the present time. I understand that in another place a delay of three weeks is represented as necessary before the papers can be produced. Now, I really see no reason why there should be a delay so considerable. Our present position with regard to Germany must be determined by that which the Government have said and done; and until the papers are laid before Parliament we must remain ignorant of the position in which we stand.
§ EARL RUSSELLThe difficulty in producing the papers is a very simple and a very ordinary one, and lies with the printer. Until it became clear that these negotiations would not end in peace, it was not judged advisable to prepare the papers for presentation. We have now, however, put the papers in the hands of the printer, and upon inquiring from him to-day what time they would take to print, he said that they could not be ready in less than three weeks.