Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

vated. If some political agents have devoted themselves to the studies which it demands, others have entered upon the career without previous knowledge, or have restricted themselves to glancing very superficially at the works which treat of the law of nations, and the history of the principal treaties." These remarks, we find, are especially applicable to the diplomatic chiefs and agents of our own country, who, besides a want of the peculiar idiosyncrasy of shrewdness, and cunning which should fit them for the arena of international negociations, are necessarily deficient in these stores of experience and that ready resource, which mark their more accomplished opponents.

Within our own time we have had some noteworthy examples of the manner in which the destinies of the country, in its foreign relations, have been confided to the hands of men who have had little or no training to the business. The Earl of Malmsbury, in the course of the numerous discussions which have taken place on the subject of the Washington Treaty, made some pungent remarks upon the evil consequences which had of late years too frequently attended the performances of amateur, or insufficiently experienced diplomatists. By a strange coincidence, it happens that his lordship, in his own career, has afforded a striking illustration of the fact, under circumstances, which, as they are hardly known beyond the pages of the Blue Book in which they are recorded (Papers relating the Affairs of Denmark'), we may be permitted to repeat here.

It appears that, in 1852, Lord Malmsbury having,

in consequence of a change of Government, been called, without any previous experience of official duty, to the direction of the Foreign Office, found there, amongst other matters which required immediate attention, the Treaty of London for the settlement of the Danish Succession. This treaty had been negotiated during a considerable period, by Lord Palmerston and Lord Granville; and Lord Malmsbury, their successor, could hardly be expected to know much of the ins and outs of the matter. He accordingly appears to have, in a confiding moment, applied to Baron Brunnow, the Russian Minister -but why to him, of all people in the world, we are at a loss to imagine-for some information as to the previous negotiations on the subject. To this request the obliging representative, and zealous servant of the Russian Czar acceded, and, in a letter dated "Ashburnham House, 19th April, 1862" (only three weeks before the execution of the Treaty), we find him writing as follows:-"My dear Lord Malmsbury, I hasten to fulfil my promise of sending you the inclosures, being, first, a copy of the Treaty, with certain modifications which had been indicated by Count Nesselrode, on behalf of the Russian Government; and secondly, 'a résumé, etc.,' in which I have given an account of the engagements made by our Cabinets, with reference to the deliberations now going forward in London."

It so happened, however, that this résumé made a particularly slight reference to a certain "Protocol of Warsaw," a document of ill repute, which had been secretly signed by Russia and Denmark only, at the

out-of-the-way city above named, in June, 1851, and the effect of which, in connection with the London Treaty, would be to place the Imperial House of Russia next in succession to the Throne of Denmark, in the event of failure of the male line of Prince (now King) Christian; removing no less than thirtyfive lives, fifteen of which were males, which stood in the way. To make the position clearer, let us state, that the original protocol of London, of 1850, and the draft convention of March, 1852, between Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden, after stipulating the accession of Prince Christian, of Holstein Glücksburg, after failure of the reigning family, provided that in case of extinction of the male line of that prince, "the high contracting parties engage to provide by an ulterior convention for the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy;" whereas, in the Treaty of London, of the 8th May, 1852, this condition was altered, at the instance, there is no doubt, of the Emperor of Russia, the contracting parties only stipulating "to take into consideration the ulterior overtures" which the King of Denmark "might think proper to address to them" in the eventuality supposed. The protocol of Warsaw declared that the Emperor of Russia, as head of the House of Gottorp, renounced the eventual rights (they were very remote, at the bottom of the list) which pertained to him in favour of the Prince Christian of Glücksburg, and his male descendants. It then went on to state.:-" At the same time it is understood that the eventual rights of the younger

branches of the House of Gottorp shall be expressly reserved; that those which the august head of the elder branch shall abandon for himself and his male descent in favour of, etc., shall revive in the Imperial House of Russia at any time when (which God forbid) the male descent of that Prince shall become extinct." By this stipulation, the agreed joint action of the contracting parties, in the event of failure of such issue to Prince Christian was effectually avoided, and the purpose with which the Treaty was signed invalidated. Will it be believed that the respectable Ambassador from the Czar in his résumé mentioned only the renunciation of his master, and deliberately suppressed the reserves set forth in the above extract? It so happened, however, that on the very day on which the Treaty was signed, Baron Brunnow, the Russian Minister, sent a memorandum to M. Bille, the Danish Minister, citing the whole of the stipulations of the Warsaw protocol, and notifying that in signing the Treaty he did so, on the part of his Government, under reserve of all the rights therein asserted. The Baron afterwards sent a copy of this memorandum to the Earl of Malmsbury, enclosed in a curt official communication, stating:"In accordance with the orders of my Government, I communicate to your Excellency the accompanying note, which I have this moment given to the Minister of Denmark, upon signing, conjointly with him, the Treaty of this day's date." Lord Malmsbury took five days to consider this obliging communication, and then contented himself with

F

acknowledging its receipt, doubtless under the wholesome reserve, that "the least said is the soonest mended."

Whilst upon the subject of this ill-considered treaty, it may be proper to state that the reservation by the Emperor of Russia was not the only act of treachery connected with it, tending to frustrate the avowed intentions of the contracting parties. Long after the signing of the Treaty, but about the time when circumstances prognosticated that its provisions would shortly take effect, it became known that previous to, and as a condition of, their signing the Treaty, Austria and Prussia had stipulated with Denmark certain conditions with respect to the internal government of the duchies, which would operate in direct violation of the "integrity" of the Danish kingdom, and of the sovereign independence of the state, which was the primary object of the Treaty. And what momentous results have flowed from this little bit of underhand dealing! The federal "execution" in the duchies, afterwards superseded by their joint occupation by Austria and Prussia, to whom they were eventually ceded by treaty, was the first stage of that lawless aggression which afterwards sealed the doom of Austria and the minor German States at Sadowa, and culminated in the overthrow of France at Sedan. The Treaty of London is no more, and the ultimate fate of Denmark, and the supremacy of the Baltic, are questions which will, in due course, again embroil the Northern and Western Powers of Europe.

As a pendant to the case of Lord Malmsbury,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »