[Austrian dispatch.]

The Prince of Schwartzenberg to Baron Hotter, London, on the demand for indemnification which the government of England makes of the governments of Tuscany and Naples.

We have been informed with reference to the demand for indemnification which England makes against Tuscany for the alleged damages which English subjects had suffered in Leghorn, in consequence of the suppression of the revolt which took place in that city in May of 1849. Such a claim, from all points of view, is worthy the attention of the imperial government. In fact, the injuries which gave room for this claim are attributed to the troops of His Majesty the Emperor, which acted as the allies of the legitimate sovereign of Tuscany. On the other hand, independently of this circumstance, it was natural that Austria, united to Tuscany by so many close ties, and by ancient and modern treaties, should lend, and lends, a particular interest to whatever refers to that country. Finally, and it is the point of most importance, the English pretensions tend to raise a question of principle, the solution of which is of the highest importance for the independence and security of all the states which maintain friendly relations with Germany.

The origin of the claim goes back to the period in which the city of Leghorn was in full insurrection against the legitimate government. The Austrian troops called to re-establish the authority of the laws were received at the cannon’s mouth; and firing upon them continued from the windows until the city was captured.

Our soldiers found themselves obliged to enter by force into warehouses and dwellings in order to ascertain if armed men and munitions of war were uot therein concealed. If, on such an occasion, and in spite of the efforts of our officers to prevent -disorder, there was such disorder; and if some articles belonging to Englishmen were abstracted or destroyed by our soldiers, irritated by the fight and by a blind and tenacious resistance, is there cause for surprise? Ought not that misfortune to be counted among the fatal and inevitable consequences of war?

It is under this point of view, sustained besides by the principles of right generally recognized, that the government of the Grand Duke has declared that he is not obliged to concede indemnification to those of his subjects who have suffered losses in consequence of the storming of the city of Leghorn, when it was obliged to surrender, after having refused all conciliatory propositions.

In consequence, the government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany has objected to treat the English mare favorably than his own subjects. He has not thought it to be a duty to place the English subjects in a more advantageous position, by paying them in character of indemnity sums which are not paid to Tuscan subjects; the more so, inasmuch as if the foreigners had placed their persons and property in security, they would have been able to escape with ease the general misfortunes to which the inhabitants of a besieged city must submit themselves.

These reasons, which the Tuscan government has opposed to the demands of Lord Palmerston, appear to us founded upon principles so high and so unquestionable, that with regret we have seen his excellency persist in such pretensions, notwithstanding the weight of those reasons.

So far from desisting, the English embassador receives orders to persist energetically, and to cause to be understood that if the claims were not admitted by the Tuscan government, England would be under the necessity of enforcing them by adopting energetic means.

By advice of the English embassador in Florence, Tuscany proposed to submit the matter to the arbitrament of a third power. Even though a mode of procedure had been adopted in this question which would have’ permitted a pacific solution, we cannot conceal that, in the presence of other analogous acts more recent and generally known, the categorical language of the English cabinet deserves to attract the attention of those states which have been in the habit of giving a hospitable reception to English subjects.

However disposed the civilized people of Europe may be to expand the limits of the right of hospitality, they will never do so to the extent of according to foreigners a more favorable treatment than that which the laws of the country assure to natives. To place in doubt this [Page 364] principle of public right, which we are resolved to maintain firm and unchangeable, and to claim for Englishmen established in a foreign country an exceptional position, would be to force, so to say, the other states to place themselves on guard against the consequences of a pretension so contrary to their independence, because they would impose, even by force, other conditions upon the English subjects whom they consent to receive.

We would certainly be the first to adopt that necessary measure, which, it is necessary to confess, would form a notable contrast to the tendency of our epoch to multiply and activate the commercial relations between peoples, and to lessen the distance which separates them.

Let this be as it may, the first right of an independent state is to insure its self-preservation by all the means in its power. From the time that a sovereign, availing himself of his right, finds himself obliged to have recourse to arms to suppress an insurrection, and that in the civil war which results the property of foreigners established in the country is in jeopardy, in my view it is a public misfortune, which foreigners should suffer as well as natives, and which does not entitle them to exceptional indemnity, as they neither would have that right if any other calamity should happen proceeding from the will of men.

Such is, in its most simple expression, the questionable point suggested to the Tuscan government. We are impressed with the gravity of the consequences which proceed from the question of knowing if the principle treated of ought or ought not to be respected; and for this reason we obey the necessity of submitting it in the most frank manner to the examination of the British government. It belongs to it to weigh the question in its great wisdom and equity, and this will lead, as we hope, to a quick and satisfactory solution of the question which is being discussed.

You are charged to read this dispatch to the minister of foreign relations of Great Britain.

SCHWARTZENBERG.

(See Torres Caicedo, p. 343.)