including four ladies, to hard labour in the Siberian mines. The insurrection lasted through the winter; but enough has been said to show its character, and we shall pursue no further its disgusting details. Its whole course had been marked by many bloody fights, without any general engagement.

Austria gave a death-blow to it, and at the same time reconciled herself with Russia, by proclaiming martial law in Galicia. One of the last brutalities of the Russians was the destruction of Ibiany, in the government of Kowno, in May, 1864, which had distinguished itself in the insurrection. The principal inhabitants were put to death, the rest were transported into remote provinces, and their lands distributed among Rascolniks, or old orthodox Russians, the town was razed, its very name effaced, and the new colony was called "Nicholas." By a decree of the Czar, March 2nd, 1864, the lands of the Polish nobles were given to the peasants, with only a nominal compensation. Polish officials who did not speak Russian were dismissed, and the Russian tongue was introduced into all schools. The children of the poor were forcibly baptized by Russian popes; the rich had to pay for the privilege. of Catholic baptism. Muravief was rewarded by Alexander II. for his atrocities with the cross of St. Andrew! The same policy was pursued in subsequent years. In July, 1869, the Polish university of Warsaw was converted into a Russian one, and all lectures were to be in that tongue. Shopkeepers and innkeepers were forbidden to answer an address in Polish; the speaking of that language aloud in the streets was prohibited; nay, fathers and mothers were forbidden to teach it to their children! A German author has truly remarked, that though some of the tyrants of antiquity turned whole populations out of their lands and homes, and sent them into strange lands, there is no instance of their having deprived them of the use of their mother. tongue.1

Thus Russia stamped out the Polish nation, regardless alike of treaties, of the rights of property, nay, of all feelings of humanity, and the plainest laws of civilized nations.

Arnd, Gesch. der Jahre, 1867-1871, B. i. S. 352.

516

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES. [CHAP. LXXIII.

THE

CHAPTER LXXIII.

HE attention of Europe was diverted from unhappy Poland by other scenes of injustice, though not of equal atrocitythe German war against Denmark, and mutilation of that kingdom. The Danish constitution of 1855 was a source of constant disputes with Germany, but we shall pass them over till the year 1863, when they were brought to a crisis. With the view of getting rid of German interference, Holstein, a member of the German Bund, was declared, by a Danish ordinance of March 23rd, to be autonomous and only personally united with Denmark. This measure, it was stated in the preamble, was in accordance with the demands of the German Bund, but not to be considered definitive. In fact, however, the Germans wanted something more. They desired that Schleswick, as well as Holstein, should be autonomous, and that the two duchies should be united; and they asserted that in thus separating their constitutions, it was the purpose of Denmark to annex Schleswick. Nor was this charge without some colour. In the preceding January the Danish States, or Rigsdag, had voted an address to the King that he should persist in his endeavours to draw Schleswick to Denmark, to which probably he was not disinclined. And the marriage of Alexandra, daughter of Christian of Glücksburg, who, by the Treaty of London, 1852, had been recognized as heir to the Danish throne, to the Prince of Wales (March 10th, 1863), may have encouraged the aspirations of the Danish court by the hopes of a strong alliance.

In the following August Austria and Prussia demanded that the Danish constitution of 1855 should be abrogated; that the project of a new constitution should be submitted to an assembly of the four Danish States, viz. Denmark proper, Schleswick, Holstein, and Lauenburg; and that all four assemblies should be on a footing of equality. A manifest injustice; since Lauenburg, with its population of 50,000 souls, would thus become equal to Denmark, And they further demanded that the mixed Danish

and German populations of Schleswick should be put on the same footing as before 1848.

Negotiations ensued which came to nothing. On the 1st October the Bund resolved on federal execution in Holstein, and Denmark was summoned to withdraw the March ordinance within a month. But Denmark was proceeding in a contrary direction. On the 13th of November the Rigsraad passed a law for a new Assembly, to consist of deputies from Denmark and Schleswick only, to the exclusion of Holstein and Lauenburg. This certainly tended to the incorporation of Schleswick, but was not actually such, as both States were to preserve their particular constitutions.

The question entered into a new phase by the death of the weak and incapable King Frederick VII., November 15th, only two days after the passing of the new law. He was succeeded by Christian IX., the Protocol King, as he was called, of the Treaty of London. But the duchies were claimed by Prince Frederick of Schleswick-Holstein Sonderburg Augustenburg, a major in the Prussian army, though, as we have seen (supra, p. 469), his father had renounced all claim to them, both for himself and children. But the Prince maintained that he was not bound by this renunciation; the Holsteiners recognized him, and the majority of the German Bund supported him. Austria and Prussia, which had signed the London Protocol, could not openly join this movement, so they affected the part of mediators. But the Prussian Parliament addressed the king to disregard the Protocol and recognize Augustenburg, who was also supported by the Nationalverein, the Gross Deutschland Reformverein, and the Particularists, as they were called, or opponents of unity, who wanted a Triad, and would have been glad to see another State added. The more outspoken Germans confessed that they were moved by interested views, for the Danish dominions contained some fine ports which they coveted.

Christian IX. being summoned by the Bund to withdraw the law of November 13th, requested time, as a constitutional sovereign, to assemble and consult the Danish Rigsraad; but this was unreasonably refused, and it was resolved to proceed to federal execution. Austria and Prussia, in a joint letter to the Diet, December 5th, stated that they could not violate the Treaty of London, "so long as they recognized its validity;" and as that Treaty protected Schleswick, they recommended the Diet to confine themselves to execution in Holstein, while they would

518

FEDERAL EXECUTION IN HOLSTEIN. [CHAP. LXXIII.

take the case of Schleswick into their own consideration. This unexpected agreement of the two great Powers excited much surprise, and at first sight, indeed, appears strange enough. But we have already seen that Austria, at this period governed by Count Rechberg, whom Bismarck had fascinated, was bent on conciliating Prussia. She wanted also to watch over and control Prussia, and to prevent her from enjoying alone the fruits of victory. On the other hand, though Prussian interests coincided with those of Germany, the democrats in the Prussian Parliament accused the Government of returning to the policy of Olmütz, and refused a grant for the war,

By order of the Diet, at the instigation of Austria and Prussia, 12,000 Saxon and Hanoverian troops, forming the army for federal execution, entered Holstein, December 23rd. This was a clear breach of the Treaty of London by the kings of Saxony and Hanover; for those sovereigns, as well as the King of Würtemberg, had acceded to the Treaty, though the German Bund had not. At the same time Austrian and Prussian troops were posted on the Danish frontier as a reserve. The Danes evacuated Holstein, by advice of the neutral Powers; Duke Frederick VIII., of Augustenburg, was proclaimed there, and joined the army of the Bund at Kiel. Prussia connived at this illegal proceeding, though Austria protested. Those Powers had now rejected the Treaty of London, which they had recognized at the beginning of December. On the 14th of January, 1864, they moved the Diet that Denmark should be required to suspend the November constitution within forty-eight hours, and that in case of refusal Schleswick should be occupied as a pledge. England and Russia advised the revocation, but Christian IX. again pleaded that he must await the sanction of his Rigsraad. Hereupon it was proposed by the neutral Powers that a Protocol should be made in the names of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden, recording the intention of the Danish Government to make the required concession; but this was also refused by the German Powers, on the ground that if they should stop short after preparing to invade Schleswick, they would be exposed to disturbance and revolution in Germany. In short, they were already resolved to appropriate Schleswick. Bismarck, on being asked whether his Government still adhered to the Treaty of London, gave a vague and equivocating answer. The view in Berlin was that if Schleswick resisted it would lead to war, and that war put an end to treaties. So that a strong Power may release herself from her engagements

by making an unprovoked and unjustifiable aggression. For Bismarck himself had declared in the Prussian Chambers, in April, 1849, that the war then prosecuted against Denmark was a highly unjust, frivolous, and disastrous one, to support an entirely groundless revolution.1

The affairs of Denmark had long engaged the attention of the British Cabinet. Lord John Russell, then Foreign Minister, had protested, in 1860, against the interference of the Germans in Schleswick. In January, 1862, he had energetically reproved the proceedings of Prussia, but in the summer of that year he accompanied the Queen to Gotha, the centre of the German Schleswick-Holstein agitation, where his opinions seem to have undergone a change. In the autumn he charged the Danish Government with neglecting their engagements as to Schleswick, and proposed to them a new constitution, which would have tended to the dissolution of the monarchy. It is unnecessary to describe it, as Lord Palmerston, then Prime Minister, pronounced it impracticable. In the autumn of 1863, when matters threatened an open rupture, Lord Russell, who seems again to have changed his views, addressed notes to the Frankfort Diet, intimating, in a haughty tone, that Great Britain could not remain an indifferent spectator of German pretensions. On the 28th of December the English Cabinet sent a copy of the Treaty of London to the Frankfort Diet, and invited the European Powers to a Congress, to discuss the Danish question. France at once declined. Only a little before England had rejected Napoleon's proposal for a Congress about Polish affairs. That refusal was no doubt a wise one, for the French Emperor proposed to open up the Treaties of 1815, and consequently the whole state of Europe, which would have caused endless debate and confusion. But the abrupt style of the reply, which the French characterized as brutal, had given as much offence as the refusal itself. The conduct of France, however, throughout this Danish business was very equivocal, and the key of it must be sought in some disclosures made by Bismarck in 1870. Napoleon III. had formed the project of playing the same game with the Prussian Minister as he had done with Cavour, and of getting an accession of French territory by helping Prussia in the same way. With this view a Secret Treaty between France and Prussia had been drawn up by Count Benedetti, the

"... ein höchst ungerechtes, frivoles und verderbliches Unternehmen, zur Unterstützung einer ganz unmotivirten Re

volution."-Rev. des Deux Mondes, Sept. 15, 1868, p. 380.