« PreviousContinue »
nothing more amusing, under other circumstances, than the communications of their Envoys, who, themselves imperfectly informed on all affairs of any importance, managed, by diplomatic arts, and, perhaps, by the talent of combination, to compensate for what they were ignorant of in their subordinate situations. At Ratisbon, as well as at Frankfort, the Envoys of the petty German Princes were sure to be found, wherever there was any thing to be discovered, and wherever an interesting piece of news or a bon mot was to be purchased at a cheap price.
On the part of the great Powers of Europe, only three Envoys were then accredited to the German Diet, those of England, France, and Russia. These Embassies were, in reality, superfluous, as the same states were diplomatically represented at the courts which essentially formed the Germanic Confederation. At Frankfort, nothing particular can be learnt, which is not to be
the attempt of the 3rd of April, may not be without interest: "Germany, perhaps, would lose by an unsuccessful issue of this investigation an opportunity, which might never be regained, of arriving at the real foundation of the evil which, during so many years, weighs with such hostility on Princes as well as their people.-Vienna, April 13, 1833."
acquired at least as accurately, and, perhaps, with less difficulty at Berlin and at Vienna, or at any other of the principal Courts of Germany. The representation, therefore, of these powers seems to be only a formality, or the result of an opinion which may have been entertained formerly that more extended plenary powers would be given to the Diet, and that the German Confederation, as such, would become more important than the result has proved.
Sweden, which formerly had an Envoy at the Diet, soon recalled him when she perceived how superfluous the appointment was, especially as, perhaps, she may not, like England, Russia, and France, have had the means to incur a considerable expense for a useless representation.
With regard to the Envoys of the two first mentioned Powers, their official activity may, in fact, be reduced to zero, though, no doubt, they failed not to address numberless reports to their Governments. During the whole lapse of time between September 1832 and the end of the year, they had no official communications to make to the Diet, excepting, 1st, a protest against the decrees of the Diet of the 28th of June and the
6th of July, 1832 ; and, 2ndly, a note on the affairs of Belgium; but both of them uselessly and unsuccessfully. As regards the self-styled protest, we shall mention it more particularly, in order that its true signification may be appreciated.
Shortly after the publication of the July ordinances of Germany, about the beginning of August, 1832, the Cabinets of France and England simultaneously addressed themselves by their Envoys to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin, to make the declaration that being jointly guaranteed the treaties of Vienna, they must protest against the above-named decrees, inasmuch as they were derogatory to several of the stipulations of the act of the Congress of Vienna, and even to the federal act of Germany, and that they encroached upon the rights and the liberties of the German nation. They were answered very politely from Vienna and Berlin, that such a protest could not be accepted, as it concerned the general affairs of Germany, which could not be decided alone by the Cabinet of Austria or by that of Prussia. That if England and France intended to make the decrees in question the subject of any declaration, it could only be made at Frankfort to the Diet, the legal
organ of the Germanic confederation, and that they must address themselves to that body. At the same time, as might be expected, the necessary instructions were sent from Berlin and Vienna to M. de Nagler and to Count Münch to the effect that in case the Envoys of France and England should, in consequence of orders from their governments, take a step similar to that of the Plenipotentiaries at Vienna and Berlin, they were to be rejected laconically and in the most decided manner. To save appearances, the above named governments caused their protest to be repeated at Frankfort; it was rather roughly rejected by the Prussian Minister, and rather more politely by Count Münch. They signified to them that the Germanic confederation could not acknowledge in any foreign power a right to interfere in its internal affairs, and that consequently they could receive no such protest. In the public journals, the two parties then boasted of their exploits, though we are persuaded that, in fact, both of them only made this manoeuvre in order to flatter public opinion, and to laugh at those who were sufficiently imbecile to believe in the sincerity of such actions. The representatives of
England and France at the Diet, in 1832, were on the part of the first power, Mr. Thomas Cartwright, and on the part of the other, Baron Alley de Cipreye. Mr. Cartwright did not concern himself much about diplomacy, abandoning it as much as possible to his lady by birth, Countess Sandizell. The French Envoy was more fitted for business, and was not wanting in the fine tact and cleverness which distinguish his nation in general.
He seemed to aspire to a higher embassy in Germany, and for this purpose had acquired a proficiency in the German language very uncommon in a Frenchman. The absolutist position of the Russian Envoy, Baron d'Anstett, was rather strongly contrasted with his previous rather jacobinical opinions. Born in Alsace, he had in the first years of the French revolution devoted himself with zeal to agitation — he was by profession an advocate; like his friend Schöll, he recovered from his mania. During the reign of terror, he took refuge at Strasburg, and entered into the Austrian service and then into the Russian. Like almost all those who then wished to rise in Russia, he followed the military career and distinguished himself several times. He was already a