Mr. Motley to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have no special facts to report since my despatch of last week, but it cannot be denied that the aspect of affairs in Europe becomes every day more threatening.
There is but little said now of the Polish insurrection, which is considered as having been virtually suppressed by the superior force of the Russian government. The result of the many months of diplomatic correspondence on the part of the three great powers with Russia has been to excite hopes which were never to be fulfilled and enmities not easy to allay.
Any other issue could hardly have been anticipated when one of the three intervening powers had distinctly stated that she would never draw the sword in the dispute, and when it was quite obvious that such declarations on the part of one of the others would have been quite superfluous.
I beg to call your particular attention to the debate in the Austrian Reichsrath, a translation of which is appended to my despatch No. 39, from which you will see that for the imperial government of Austria to take part in a war against Russia in the cause of Poland has always been an impossibility. The result of intervention by words and letters has been, therefore, the reverse of beneficial. In the words of the Emperor Napoleon, “the steps of England, of Austria, and of Prance, in place of arresting the struggle, have only envenomed it.” (Speech of November 5.) The refusal of the English government to accept the proposition of a European congress would seem to make the fulfilment of that project hopeless; indeed, it would seem, a priori, to have been hopeless. The sovereigns of Europe were invited to consult together in person upon the great questions which agitate Europe. It was understood that, among others, the Italian question, the German-Danish question, the Polish question, and the Danubian principality question, were to be discussed. But is it possible to imagine the King of Italy, the Emperor of Austria, and the Pope amicably discussing the Italian question? Can any one dream that King Victor Emanuel would agree to restore the provinces which he has acquired at the expense of the Papal see and of Austria, or that he would solemnly renounce in the face of the world the cherished hopes of the Italian people to obtain possession of Rome and of Venetia? Can any one imagine, on the other hand, that the Pope would recognize the possession by that potentate of those portions already acquired by him of the patrimony of St. Peter, or would in advance surrender Rome; or that the Emperor of Austria would entertain a proposition to abandon Venice, or the Italian Tyrol? Or could anything more unlikely be suggested than that the German Bund would submit what it considers a purely German question to the arbitration of foreign powers?
If such questions can be settled amicably by sovereigns or their plenipotentiaries around a green table, the millennium is much nearer than one would, from any other symptom, suppose it to be. I fear, therefore, that the general consultation to devise a panacea for those fatal diseases which, according to the alarming description of the French Emperor, now afflict the body politic of Europe, is not likely to be held. It is now understood that this empire has not declined the congress “in principle,” but wishes a preliminary programme, and similar evasive acceptances by the other leading powers would seem equivalent to a refusal.
Thus this hemisphere is to remain in the desperate condition in which it found itself, according to such high authority, on the 5th of November—“Europe is laboring on all sides with the elements of dissolution. * * * * The edifice is undermined by time, and destroyed piecemeal by revolution. * * [Page 134] * * The state of things is deranged and ruinious, * * * and crumbling away.” (Speech of November 5 of French Emperor.)
The pregnant questions addressed to the rulers of this part of the world by the same sovereign—“Shall the jealous rivalry of the great powers forever hinder the progress of civilization? Shall we always keep up mutual distrust by excessive armaments? Are we to exhaust the most precious resources indefinitely in a vain ostentation of our forces? Are we to preserve forever a state of things which is neither peace with its security, nor war with its chances of success?”—are not likely to receive satisfactory answers. It is for the powers who do not accept the congress to reply to the taunt that their “refusal leaves room to suspect the existence of secret projects that will not bear the light of day.”
Under these circumstances it may be thought that it will require all the wisdom of European rulers to regulate their own affairs, thus officially declared to be hopelessly tending to ruin, and that we may be saved during the coming year from any interference on their part in our business.
I had hoped to send you by this post something definite in regard to the attitude of the Austrian government in the Schleswig-Holstein matter. A statement is daily expected in the Reichsrath from the minister of foreign affairs, but it has not yet been made.
On the constitutional question it may be said that no difference of opinion exists in Germany.
The Bund will unanimously carry out by force its decision that the new Danish constitution is unlawful. The decree of execution and occupation of Holstein has, however, not yet been made by the Diet, because precedence has been in a certain sense given to the succession question.
The Diet has just voted not to receive the Danish minister as representative of Holstein. Thus the question as to the rightful successor to the duchies is declared to be in suspense.
There are unofficial indications also of a willingness on the part of Austria and Prussia to conform to a majority of the Diet, when it comes to a vote on the succession question. In that case the whole force of the Bund would proceed to occupy Holstein, not only in order to protect that duchy against the imposition of the constitution, pronounced unlawful by the Bund, but in order to hold the territory until it shall be decided who is its rightful sovereign. The excitement in Germany on the subject is widespread and increasing. On the other hand, it is difficult to see how Denmark can help resisting this invasion by defending her fortresses and by aggressive maritime measures. This would be war, and it will then be for England to decide whether the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish monarchy is a sufficient cause for her to engage in hostilities with the Bund.
I have the honor to remain your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D.C.