Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:35:38.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

British Diplomacy and the German Problem, 1848-1850*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

William J. Orr Jr.
Get access

Extract

Throughout much of the nineteenth century relations between Britain and Germany were blessed not only by the absence of any fundamental conflicts of national interest, but also by positive factors tending to encourage friendly ties. Memories of the common struggle against Napoleon, the predominantly Protestant character of tioth countries, and the marriage of Queen Victoria to a German prince all suggested a natural affinity between them. German liberals and conservatives alike found much to admire in English political institutions, while Englishmen in turn approved the steps, however halting, by which many of the German states adopted constitutions and representative institutions.

During the late 1840s British statesmen did appear to have recognized the benefits that would accrue for Britain through consolidation of the German Confederation, and there was also some discussion regarding the prospect of an Anglo-Prussian alliance. After 1846, thanks to Palmerston's stridency in the affair of the Spanish marriages, Britain lost the good will of France and thus remained diplomatically isolated in the face of the powerful conservative coalition of Austria, Prussia, and Russia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , Fall 1978 , pp. 209 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The first serious studies of this subject were German works written after the First World War: Hans Precht, Englands Stellung zur deutschen Einheit, 1848-1850 (Munich and Berlin, 1925), and Alexander Scharff, Die europäischen Grossmächte und die deutsche Revolution, 1848-1851 (Leipzig, 1942). Both books, reflecting the suspicions of Britain shared by many Germans during this period, stress British reservations about German unification and dwell upon British hostility to the cause of Schleswig-Holstein. Both depended entirely upon German archives. More recently, however, W.E. Mosse, The European Powers and the German Question, 1848-1871 (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 13-31, suggested that the British attitude toward Germany was hardly so negative as earlier German accounts suggested. This conclusion is bolstered in Günther Gillessen, Lord Palmerston und die Einigung Deutschlands (Lübeck and Hamburg, 1961), a work based on the hitherto neglected resources of the Public Record Office. Gillessen's otherwise impressive work, however, has two limitations: it did not use the still available materials in German archives, and its account of many key aspects and developments of the crucial Schleswig-Holstein problem is inadequate. Frank G. Weber, “Palmerston and Prussian Liberalism 1848,” The Journal of Modern History, 35 (1963): 125-136, provides an interesting account of Anglo-Prussian relations in the period preceding and immediately following the March Revolution.

References

1 Martin, Theodore, The Life of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, 5 vols. (London, 1875–1880), II:447ff.Google Scholar

2 Nippold, Friedrich, ed., Christian Carl Josias Freiherr von Bunsen, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1868–1871), II: 401Google Scholar; Bell, Herbert C. F., Lord Palmerston, 2 vols. (London, 1936), II: 4–5Google Scholar.

3 London, Public Record Office [hereafter PRO], FO 30/117, fol. 10, Palmerston to Stratford Canning, No. 1, 10 March 1848.

4 PRO, FO 64/282, fol. 60-61, Palmerston to Westmorland, No. 30, 22 February 1848.

5 Tsar Nicholas spelled out his plans in a letter of 7 March to King Frederick William IV, reproduced in Russian translation in Averbukh, Revekka, “Avstriiskaia revolutsiia i Nikolai I., Krasnyi Arkhiv, 89/90(1938): 169fGoogle Scholar.

6 The Letters of Queen Victoria, 1837-1861, eds. Benson, Christopher and Esher, Viscount, 3 vols. (New York, 1907), I: 179–181Google Scholar. The Queen's reply was non-committal. See Krusch, Bruno, “Letters of Queen Victoria to Frederick William IV,” English Historical Review, 40(1925): 106–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 PRO, FO 64/285, fol. 129, 131, 146, 182, Westmorland to Palmerston, Nos. 41, 44, 52, of 29 February, 6 A 9 March 1848; FO 64/282, fol. 66, 67, 72, 73, 92-93, 108-110, Palmerston to Westmorland, Nos. 33, 35, 44, 50 of 29 February, 4, 10 & 14 March 1848. Palmerston's instructions of 10 March to Canning: FO 30/117, fol. 1-25.

8 The best study of the Polish problem and of Arnim's policy is Feldmann, Józef, Sprawa polska w roku. 1848 (Cracow, 1933), pp. 90–242Google Scholar, but see also Knapowska, WisLawa, “La France, la Prusse et la question polonaise en 1848,” in La Pologne au Vie congrès internationale des sciences historiques Oslo 1928 (Warsaw, 1930), pp. 147–166Google Scholar.

9 PRO, FO 30/117, fol. 63-66, Canning to Palmerston, No. 8, 30 March 1848.

10 PRO, FO 64/282, fol. 178, Palmerston to Westmorland, No. 84, 6 April 1848.

11 He and Canning had urged Russian diplomats to “do something for Poland”— although both dropped the matter when the Russians protested that this was not England's concern. Averbukh, Revekka, “Nikolai I. i evropeiskaia reaktäia, 1848-49gg.,” Krasnyi Arkhiv, 47/48 (1931): 18Google Scholar; Hoetzsch, Otto, ed., Peter von Meyendorff: Ein russischer Diplomat an den Höfen von Berlin und Wien, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1923), II: 67Google Scholar.

12 See Carr, W., Schleswig-Holstein, 1815-48: A Study in National Conflict (Manchester, 1963)Google Scholar. For the events leading up to the revolt see Neergaard, Niels, Under Juni-grundloven: En fremstilling af det danske folks politiske historié fra 1848 til 1866, 2 vols. (Copenhagen, 1896–1912), I: 127ffGoogle Scholar.

13 Hjelholt, Holger, British Mediation in the Danish-German Conflict, 1848-1850, 2 vols. (Copenhagen, 1965–1966), I: 52–75Google Scholar. Perhaps the most brazen instance of Arnim's duplicity was his assurance to Danish diplomats in early April that Prussia's purpose in entering the duchies was solely to uphold order and prevent the declaration of a Republic! See Thorsøe, Alexander, Kong Frederik den syvendes regering, 2 vols. (Copenhagen, 1884–1889), I: 155-156, 172Google Scholar.

14 PRO, FO 64/286, fol. 335, 357-358, Westmorland to Palmerston, Nos. 159, 164 of 27 & 28 April 1848.

15 Bell, , Palmerston, II: 9–10Google Scholar; PRO, FO 64/282, fol. 182, 190, 192, 197, unpag., 222-223, FO 64/283, fol. 7-8, 15-16, 38-39, 70, Palmerston to Westmorland, Nos. 86, 90, 91, 93, 100, 105, 110, 111, 122, 123, 136 of 8, 11, 14, 15, 20 & 27 April, 2, 8 & 16 May, 1848.

16 Olsen, Albert, “Danmark og den engelske maegling 1848,” Historisk Tidsskrift, ser. 11, vol. 2 (1947–1949): 227ff.Google Scholar; Hjelholt, , British Mediation, I: 145–148Google Scholar.

17 Scharff, , Die europäischen Grossmächte, p. 37Google Scholar; Precht, , Englands Stellung, pp. 52, 111Google Scholar.

18 Documents diplomatiques du Gouvernement provisoire et de la commission du pouvoir exécutif, 2 vols. (Paris, 1953–1954), II: 17Google Scholar, report of French ambassador, 2 May 1848.

19 PRO, FO 65/349, Bloomfield to Palmerston, Nos. 133, 149, 161 of 2 & 10 May, 2 June 1848. It was not Palmerston, but Nesselrode who first recommended this solution. See de Nesselrode, A., ed., Lettres et papiers du chancelier comte de Nesselrode, 1760-1856, vol. 9 (Paris, n.d.), p. 93Google Scholar. This proposal was communicated to Bloomfield, the British ambassador, who relayed it to Palmerston. PRO, FO 65/349, Bloomfield to Palmerston, No. 135, 5 May 1848.

20 Haralds, Hjalmar, Sveriges utrikespolitik 1848 (Uppsala, 1912), pp. 80ff.Google Scholar

21 Text of note: Thorsoe, , Kong Frederik den syvendes regering, I:253 ff.Google Scholar

22 Haralds, , Sveriges utrikespolitik, pp. 155ff.Google Scholar

23 PRO, FO 30/105, fol. I, Palmerston to Strangways (British representative at the Federal Diet), No. 1, 25 March 1848.

24 Nippold, , Bunsen, II: 444Google Scholar; Precht, , Englands Stellung, pp. 72ff.Google Scholar

25 Jagow, Kurt, ed., Letters of the Prince Consort, 1831-1861, tr. Dugdale, E.T.S. (New York, 1938), p. 142Google Scholar; Nippold, , Bunsen, II: 444Google Scholar.

26 Bell, , Palmerston, II: 3Google Scholar.

27 PRO, FO 30/107, fol. 17, 21, 40-43, 91ff., Palmerston to Cowley, Nos. 7, 9, 19, 40 of 4, 8, 14 & 28 August 1848.

28 Ibid., fol. 160-161, Palmerston to Cowley, No. 70, 21 September 1848.

29 Taylor, A.J.P., The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy, 1847-49 (Manchester, 1934), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar

30 PRO, FO 64/284, fol. 5-7, 59, Palmerston to Westmorland, Nos. 190 & 215 of 12 September and 2 October 1848. Great Britain, Foreign Office, Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Italy, from July to December 30, 1848 (London, 1849), p. 424Google Scholar.

31 PRO, FO 30/108, fol. 11-12, 99-101, Palmerston to Cowley, Nos. 98 & 134 of 2 & 31 October 1848.

32 PRO, FO 30/111, fol. 22-25, 82-88, 90-93, 173-178; FO 30/112, fol. 46-53; FO 30/113, fol. 16-24; FO 30/115, fol. 224-236; Cowley to Palmerston, Nos. 146, 160, 161, 182, unnumbered, 236, 325 of 2, 8, 15 & 20 October, 4 November, 10 December 1848.

33 Nippold, , Bunsen, II: 481–482Google Scholar.

34 Eyck, Frank, The Prince Consort: A Political Biography (London, 1959), pp. 85-86. 90ff.Google Scholar

35 PRO, FO 30/107, fol. 4-5, Palmerston to Cowley, No. 1, 29 July 1848.

36 PRO, FO 30/108, fol. 236, Palmerston to Cowley, No. 197, 18 December 1848.

37 Ibid., fol. 256, Palmerston to Cowley, No. 207, 22 December 1848.

38 The Times, 20 December 1848, 31 January 1849.

39 Petersen, Erling Ludewig, “Martsministeriets fredsbasisforhandlinger,” Historisk Tidsskrift, ser. 11, vol. 4 (1956): 601ff.Google Scholar

40 PRO, FO 65/349, Bloomfield to Palmaston, 20 June 1848; Löfgren, Erik O., Sverige-Norge och danska frågan, 1848-49 (Uppsala, 1921), p. 67Google Scholar; Jennings, Lawrence C., “French Diplomacy and the First Schleswig-Holstein Crisis,” French Historical Studies, 7 (1971): 204–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Löfgren, , Danska fråan, pp. 70ff.Google Scholar; Scharff, Alexander, “Schleswig-Holsteins Erhebung im Spiegel französischer Akten,” in his Schleswig-Holstein in der deutschen und nordeuropäischen Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1969), pp. 132–133Google Scholar.

42 PRO, FO 30/108, fol. 206-210, Palmerston to Cowley, No. 184, 11 December 1848.

43 Berlin-Dahlem, Geheimes Staatsarchiv (Preussischer Kuhurbesitz) [hereafter G SA], III Hauptabteilung, Nr. 825, fol. 84-90, memorandum clarifying Central Power's stand in negotiations.

44 Thorsøe, , Kong Frederik den syvendes regering, I: 423ff.Google Scholar; Hjelholt, Holger, Sonderjylland under treåskrigen, 2 vols. (Copenhagen, 1959–1961), 1:165ff.Google Scholar

45 The foregoing account, except where otherwise noted, follows Hjelholt, , British Mediation, II: 81 ff.Google Scholar

46 PRO, FO 30/124, fol. 137-144, 231-239, Cowley to Palmerston, unnumbered, No. 127 of 10 & 18 March 1849.

47 GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 48ff.

48 PRO, FO 30/120, fol. 164-168, 245, 263, 266-267, 272, Palmerston to Cowley, Nos. 74, 106, 115, 116, 119 of 6 & 28 March, 10 & 17 April 1849.

49 Thorsøe, , Kong Frederik den syvendes regering, I: 439-440, 472–474Google Scholar; Hjelholt, , British Mediation, II: 81ffGoogle Scholar.

50 GSA, III, Nr. 826, fol. 128-130, Gagern to Bunsen, 27 April 1849.

51 Ibid., fol. 154ff., “Draft of Protocol,” 9 May 1849, fol. 184ff., Foreign Minister to Bunsen, 19 May 1849.

52 GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 200, Palmerston to Bunsen. 25 May 1849, fol. 205, Palmerston to Bunsen, 31 May 1849.

53 Eyck, , Prince Consort, pp. 104–105Google Scholar, Albert's letter of March 1848 to Russell; Victoria, , Letters, II: 264–265Google Scholar, letter of 21 June 1849 to Palmerston.

54 GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 212ff., Bunsen's report No. 27, 19 June 1849. See also Connell, Brian, Regina versus Palmerston (Garden City, New York, 1961), pp. 134–135Google Scholar.

55 Bo V: son Lundqvist, , Sverige och den slesvig-holsteinska frågan, 1849-50 (Uppsala, 1934), pp. 14ff.Google Scholar

56 The best and most detailed account of Prussia's Union policy remains Meinecke, Friedrich, Radowitz und die deutsche Revolution (Berlin, 1913)Google Scholar.

57 The Times, 3 September 1849, 26 January 1830.

58 Vienna, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [hereafter HHSA], PA III, Karton 35, fol. 43, Baron Prokesch-Osten (Austrian ambassador in Berlin) to Prince Schwarzenberg, private, 28 May 1849.

59 Eyck, , Prince Consort, pp. 116, 126–129Google Scholar. Bunsen was also well-informed of the actions of Forbes and Bligh, and his awareness of this sensitive information again strongly suggests a possibly improperly dose confidence of the court. GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 216, Bunsen's report No. 28, 24 June 1849.

60 The Globe, 6 September 1849, 5, 24, 26, 28, 29, 31 January 1850; The Economist, 8 September, 6 October 1849; Precht, Englands Stellung, pp. 130-131.

61 Nippold, , Bunsen, III: 62Google Scholar; GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 228, Bunsen's report No. 33, 8 July 1849; Jagow, , Letters of the Prince Consort, pp. 151, 155Google Scholar.

62 PRO, FO 64/295, Palmerston to Westmorland, No. 183, 13 July 1849.

63 Nippold, , Bunsen, III: 47Google Scholar.

64 GSA, III, Nr. 831, fol. 335-337, Bunsen's report No. 49, 5 December 1849.

65 Lundqvist, , Slesvig-holsteinska frågan, pp. 45-87, 168ff., 220–262Google Scholar.

66 PRO, FO 64/296, Palmerston to Henry Howard (British chargé in Berlin), Nos. 19, 26, 33, 36, 40 of 25 September, 16, 19, 25 October 1849; FO 64/310 & 311, Palmerston to Westmorland, Nos. 22, 25, 125, 131, 133, 135, unnumbered, 145, 149 of 15 & 22 January, 2, 9, 12, 16 & 23 April 1850.

67 Bo V: son Lundqvist, “Palmerston och London Protokollet av ar 1850,” Historisk Tidskrift, 54 (1934): 329ff.Google Scholar; Scharff, Alexander, “Das erste Londoner Protokoll,” in his Schleswig-Holstein, pp. 189ff.Google Scholar

68 von Rantzau, Johann Albrecht, Europäische Quellen zur Schleswig-Holsteinischen Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert (Breslau, 1934), pp. 182–224 passimGoogle Scholar.

69 Great Britain, Foreign Office, Correspondence Respecting the Affairs of Denmark, 1850-53 (London, 1864), pp. 12-14, 16ff., 28–29Google Scholar.

70 PRO, FO 64/319, Howard to Palmerston, No. 20, 1 August 1850. Traditionally the Salic Law prevailed in the duchies, whereas the Danish Kongelov (Lex Regia) of 1665 admitted succession through the female line for Denmark itself. King Frederick VII, the last scion of the House of Oldenburg, was childless, and for this reason the succession question helped to complicate the Schleswig-Holstein controversy.

71 PRO, FO 64/312, Palmerston to Howard, No. 7,13 August 1850.

72 Connell, , Regina versus Palmerston, pp. 140–147Google Scholar.

73 Victoria, , Letters, II: 249, 257Google Scholar; Martin, , Prince Consort, II: 253–255Google Scholar.

74 PRO, FO 64/320, Howard to Palmerston, No. 106, 28 September 1850.

75 PRO, FO 7/378, Palmerston to Magenis, Nos. 47, 67, 80, 89, 110 of 15 August, 17 & 30 September, 15 October, 18 November 1850.

76 HHSA, PA VIII, Karton 29, II, fol. 54, 78ff., 91ff., 95-97, 99-102, 108-11, Koller to Schwarzenberg, Nos. 84 A-C, 109 A-G, 117 A-J, 118 A-D of 17 August, 25 October, 2, 16 & 21 November 1850.

77 Hjelholt, Holger, Great Britain, the Danish-German Conflict and the Danish Succession, 1850-1852 (Copenhagen, 1971), pp. 41–42Google Scholar; PRO, FO 64/320, Howard to Palmerston, No. 114, 3 October 1850.

78 Hjelholt, Holger, “H.C. Reedtz' henvendelse i August 1850 til Rusland og Frankrig om militaer hjaelp mod den slesvig-holstenske aggression,” Historisk Tidsskrift, ser. 12, vol. 5 (1971): 327ff.Google Scholar

79 PRO, FO 27/885, copy of dispatch of Foreign Minister Duocos de Lahitte to Edouard Drouyn de Lhuys, French ambassador in London, 12 October 1850.

80 PRO, FO 64/312, Palmerston to Howard, Nos. 41, 42,46 of 11 & 15 October 1850.

81 PRO, FO 27/866, Palmerston to Lord Normanby (British ambassador in Paris), Nos. 473 & 528 of 2 October, 1 November 1850; Paris, Archives des affaires étrangères, correspondance politique, Angleterre 681, fol. 51 ff., 113-144, Drouyn de Lhuys to Lahitte, Nos. 76 & 92 of 7 & 24 October 1850; see also Scharff, , “Schleswig-Holsteins Erhebung,” pp. 136ff.Google Scholar

82 Archives des affaires étrangères, corr. pol., Russie 205, fol. 203-207, Nesselrode to Castelbajac (French ambassador in St. Petersburg), 24 October 1850. Palmerston knew well beforehand of Russian disinclination to become directly involved in the Holstein controversy: PRO, FO 65/379, Bloomfield to Palmerston, No. 280, 3 September 1850.

83 Nippold, , Bunsen, III: 147Google Scholar.

84 PRO, FO 64/312, Palmerston to Howard, Nos. 47 & 57 of 22 October, 5 November 1850. See also Engberg, Jens, Det slesvigske spøgsmål, 1850-1853 (Copenhagen, 1968), pp. 118–119Google Scholar.

85 See Hjelholt, Holger, “Rackwitz og det slesvig-holstenske spørgsmå;l i Oktober 1850,” Historisk Tidsskrift, ser. 12, vol. 5 (1971): 62ffGoogle Scholar. for a discussion of the Prussian Foreign Minister's efforts to extricate himself from the Holstein predicament.

86 PRO, FO 64/312, Palmerston to Howard, Nos. 56 & 68 of 5 & 26 November 1850.

87 PRO, FO 65/380, Bloomfield to Palmerston, No. 344, 9 November 1850.

88 HHSA, PA VIII, Karton 29, II, fol. 112-115, Koller to Schwarzenberg, No. 117D, 16 November 1850.

89 Nippold, , Bunsen, III: 153ff.Google Scholar; GSA, III, Nr. 832, fol. 126, 136, Bunsen's reports Nos. 112 & 119 of 30 October, 28 November 1850; HHSA, PA VIII, Karton 29, II, fol. 112-115, Koller to Schwarzenberg, No. 117B, 16November 1850.

90 Nippold, , Bunsen, III: 153Google Scholar; GSA, III, Nr. 832, fol. 127, Bunsen's report No. 112, 30 October 1850.

91 Victoria, , Letters, II: 274–275Google Scholar; Jagow, , Letters of the Prince Consort, p. 167Google Scholar.

92 PRO, FO 64/321, Howard to Palmerston, No. 210, 17 November 1850.

93 See the copy of Russell's letter of 22 November to Stockmar in Möring, Walter, ed., Josef von Radowitz: Nachgelassene Briefe und Aufzeichnungen zur Geschichte der Jahre 1848-1853 (Osnabrück, 1967), pp. 363–364Google Scholar; Ashley, Evelyn, The Life and Correspondence of Henry John Temple Viscount Palmerston, 2 vols. (London, 1879), II: 171–172Google Scholar, letter of 22 November to Cowley.

94 Gooch, G.P., ed., The Later Correspondence of Lord John Russell, 2 vols. (London, 1925), II: 35–36Google Scholar.

95 GSA, III, Nr. 832, fol. 135-136, Bunsen's report No. 119, 28 November 1850.

96 Ibid., fol. 135; Gillessen, , Palmerston und die Einigung Deutschlands, pp. 122–123Google Scholar.