circumstances of the two countries modified the policy of each of them. England, as mistress of the seas, saw that it would be comparatively easy to help a maritime nation like Denmark. France, with the most formidable army in Europe at her disposal, thought that a campaign in defence of Polish liberties was not beyond her powers. Each country looked with favour both on the cause of the Poles and on the integrity of Denmark. But France was more ready to employ force in the one case; England was more inclined to proffer help in the other.

At this conjuncture the Emperor Napoleon made a remarkable effort to obtain control of the crisis. Writing, on November 4, 1863, to the sovereigns of Europe, he declared that the settlement of Vienna was the foundation on which the political edifice of Europe now rests, and that it is crumbling to pieces on all sides.

It is impossible not to admit that on almost all points the treaties are destroyed, modified, disregarded, or menaced. Hence there are duties without rule, rights without title, pretensions without restraint.

In such circumstances it was the duty of the sovereigns of Europe not to delay 'taking a decision until sudden and irresistible events disturb our judgment and draw us in spite of ourselves in opposite directions.'

The Emperor accordingly proposed that the sovereigns of Europe should assemble in congress in Paris to deliberate on the affairs of a perturbed continent.

The letter reached the Queen, by whom it was referred to the Cabinet, early in November 1863. The Cabinet had already assembled in London, and only a week elapsed before Lord Russell was able to reply to the invitation. The answer which he framed, and which the Cabinet approved, was pronounced by an unfriendly critic to be 'unnecessarily explicit.' It certainly made the assembly of a congress impossible. For, after recognising the interest which the Emperor was taking in the welfare of Europe, it went on to dispose of his whole The changes which had taken place in Europe since

case.

the settlement of 1815 were not, in the writer's judgment, greater than might have been expected from the lapse of time, the progress of opinion, the shifting policy of governments, and the varying exigencies of nations. Many of the modifications which had taken place had 'received the sanction of all the great powers and now form part of the recognised law of Europe.'

Is it proposed to give these changes a more general and solemn sanction? Is such a work necessary? Will it conduce to the peace of Europe?

Other portions of the Treaty of Vienna have been disregarded or set aside, and the changes thus made de facto have not been recognised de jure by all the powers of Europe.

Is it proposed to obtain from powers which have hitherto not joined in that recognition a sanction to those changes?

Lastly come those parts of the Treaty of Vienna which are menaced, and upon those portions the most important questions of all arise. What is the nature of the proposals to be made on this subject by the Emperor Napoleon? In what direction would they tend? And, above all, are they, if agreed to by a majority of the powers, to be enforced by arms?

When the sovereigns or ministers of Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain met at Verona, in 1823, upon the affairs of Spain, the first four of those powers carried into effect their resolutions by means of armed forces, in spite of the protest of Great Britain. Is this example to be followed at the present congress in case of disagreement? Upon all these points her Majesty's Government must obtain satisfactory explanations before they can come to any decision upon the proposal made by the Emperor.

Her Majesty's Government would be ready to discuss with France and other powers, by diplomatic correspondence, any specified question upon which a solution might be attained, and European peace thereby more securely established.

But they would feel more apprehension than confidence from the meeting of a congress of sovereigns and ministers without fixed objects, ranging over the map of Europe, and exciting hopes and aspirations which they might find themselves unable either to gratify or to quiet.

Lord Russell's series of awkward questions led to answers and rejoinders; but they made a congress impracticable. They

forced the powers of Europe to address themselves to other methods in order to secure the preservation of peace; and they indirectly indisposed France to act in conjunction with England for its preservation.

In the meanwhile Lord Russell was not relaxing the efforts which he was making with this object. Writing on October 28 to the British Minister at Copenhagen, he urged Denmark to declare that she will not apply to the common expenses of the Danish Monarchy any part of the revenues raised in the Duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg, without the consent of the respective Duchies, until some general arrangement in regard to the whole question of finance is settled between Denmark and Germany.

If such declaration should be made, other questions of an international character may be reserved for settlement under the mediation of some disinterested power or powers, and her Majesty's Government would . . . wish to know whether Denmark, in regard to such questions, is prepared to accept mediation, and, if so, whether she will herself make to the Diet a proposal to that effect, or authorise her Majesty's Government to make it on her behalf.

In September Lord Russell had urged Germany to pause and accept the mediation of friendly powers. In October he was giving the same advice to Denmark, and urging her to obtain a breathing space for mediation by making concession. One party to the quarrel showed an increased disposition to take his advice. Count Bismarck had already intimated that 'if Denmark would declare to the Diet that she is ready to give them satisfaction as to the claim of Holstein and Lauenburg to control their own legislation and the expenditure of all moneys raised in the Duchies, and to accept the mediation of Great Britain for the settlement of the international question, Prussia will endeavour to prevent the execution.' It was certain that Austria and Germany would follow Prussia's example. Denmark, on the contrary, showed little readiness to fall in with Lord Russell's suggestion. She declared, indeed, that she would 'accept with pleasure the mediation of Great Britain.' But she added

The attitude which the Diet appears inclined to take with regard to the Treaty of London is such that the collective action of all the

powers who signed that treaty will perhaps become necessary. Moreover, the King has already accepted the invitation to the congress, in which, according to the opinion of many powers interested, the Danish question will be discussed. The Danish Government must therefore call your Lordship's attention to the advisability in their opinion of reserving this question for the congress, or, if it should not take place, for a special conference of the powers who signed the Treaty of London. But, if there are obstacles to a collective action of these powers, the Danish Government will be happy to accept the mediation of Great Britain.1

While, then, Germany, speaking through Count Bismarck, was willing to accept the mediation of Great Britain, Denmark was only prepared to accept Lord Russell's proposal in the event of the failure of other projects. The same motives which had induced her statesmen to refuse the compromise which had been offered in September 1862, restrained them from accepting the proposed terms. As Lord Russell wrote in 1870

Had this compromise [the arrangement of 1862] been accepted the war might have been prevented, and the integrity of Denmark preserved. Austria and Prussia, in the most conciliatory manner, declared their willingness to accept the terms proposed. Denmark would likewise have accepted them had not a large portion of the English press, including the Times and the Morning Post, two powerful organs of public opinion friendly to the Government, inflamed the passions of the Danes, and induced them to think that they would be defended by the arms of England against even the most moderate demands of Germany, and against the wellfounded complaints of the oppressed inhabitants of Schleswig. Thus excited, they refused the proposed terms."

1 Sir A. Paget to Earl Russell (telegraphic), November 20, 1863.

2 Speeches and Despatches, ii. 239. Lord Russell said the same thing in the interesting, though little known, essay on The Foreign Policy of England, 1570-1870. 'The British Government tried in various ways to conduct the lightning and carry off harmlessly the storm which they foresaw. An attempt at conciliation between Germany and Denmark had nearly proved successful. Founded on a concession to Schleswig of full autonomy, and a concert of the four parts of the Kingdom in making provision for extraordinary expenses, this plan obtained the assent of Austria and Prussia, and of such men as M. Quaade, the most calm and judicious of Danish statesman. Denmark would

And, while Danish statesmen were refusing the expedient by which Lord Russell hoped to extricate Denmark from her embarrassment, they were simultaneously aggravating, by their own policy, the intensity of the crisis. Before the death of Frederick VII. the Rigsraad deliberately sanctioned a new constitution for Denmark and Schleswig. Except that it made the representation a little more liberal, the new constitution did nothing to remove the objections which Germany was urging to the separation of Holstein from Schleswig, and to the incorporation of Schleswig in Denmark. Yet the new constitution, prepared under Frederick VII., received the assent of Christian IX.; and, though Lord Russell was able to procure the repeal of the ordinance of March, he was unable to obtain the abrogation of the constitution till the German armies, fated to dismember the Danish Kingdom, were actually in motion. Nor was the untimely publication of a new constitution the only circumstance that intensified the crisis. The Prince of Augustenburg revived his claim to the Duchy of Holstein, which it had been the special object of the Treaty

་

.

thus have obtained the integrity of her dominions, which five great powers had declared to be desirable. France was ready to give her assent, and the Germans of Schleswig would have had spiritual ministrations for themselves and competent German teachers for their children. It pleased some English advisers of great influence to meddle in this affair; they were successful in thwarting the British Government, and in the end, with the professed view, and perhaps the real intention, of helping Denmark, their friendship tended to deprive her of Holstein and Schleswig altogether' (p. 79). And in a manuscript memorandum headed Corrections,' which he left behind him, Lord Russell repeated the same complaint: The contest between Germany and Denmark gave occasion to many instances of misconstruction. The Danish Government, or some of its members, imagined that England was bound at all events to defend the integrity of the Danish Monarchy. But, although the powers who signed Lord Malmesbury's Treaty declared that the integrity of the territories of Denmark concerned the balance of power in Europe, they nowhere declared that its perservation was essential to the balance of power. No course remained open to the Ministers of Great Britain but an endeavour to preserve the integrity of Denmark by conciliatory means. A plan for this purpose was drawn up which obtained the assent of Austria and Prussia. . . very mischievous advisers inflamed the patriotic hopes of the Danish extreme party, and two self-constituted envoys, said to have been gentlemen of the British press, strongly urged the Danish Government to reject the British proposals.'

But some