Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Luxemburg Compensation Project

  • Chapter
The Mission of Vincent Benedetti to Berlin 1864–1870

  • 43 Accesses

Abstract

Although Thile had proposed on 6 November that Goltz attempt to delay Benedetti’s arrival in Berlin until Bismarck was again able to resume his duties at the end of the month,1 Napoleon requested the ambassador, who had come from Carlsbad to Paris,2 to return to his post. Conferring with Count Goltz prior to departing, Benedetti stated that he would not press for action on the alliance treaty for the time being, but that he would have to insist on a speedy decision once Bismarck was back. He considered his own return to the Prussian capital an indication that the imperial government firmly desired a settlement with Prussia; rather than accept another post, he had agreed to remain in Berlin and press for a definite decision on the draft treaty.3 Benedetti was to discover that his return was not viewed with favor by the ailing minister-president, who had already resolved to render himself inaccessible and uncooperative with the plans of the imperial representative.4

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Thile to Goltz, Berlin, 6 November 1866, APP, VIII, 133, T.; Goltz to Thile, Paris, 7 November 1866, ibid., 133–134, T.

    Google Scholar 

  2. During his stay in Carlsbad, Benedetti had engaged in many conversations with Sir Robert Morier, the British minister at Darmstadt, and a Cobdenite regarding ways and means to further the principle of international co-operation. The talks revolved mainly around the issue of economic interdependence, the reduction of tariffs, and the advocacy of free trade. Benedetti had asked Morier to prepare a summary of his ideas to forward to him in Berlin: both hoped that the Paris exhibition in the coming year might provide an occasion for convening an international congress to explore the means to promote the principle of international co-operation. Sir Robert did draw up such a memorandum which he sent to the ambassador on 12 December, but the congress idea was never exploited (R. MORIER, Memoirs and Letters, 1826–1876, ed. R. Wemyss [London, 1911], II, 92–97 ).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 15 November 1866, APP, VIII, 143 and ft. 1, p. 138, above.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Countess Marie Bismarck to Keudell, Putbus, 19 November 1866, KEUDELL, pp. 338339. She wrote that her father did not intend to be disturbed anymore by Benedetti, in whom he had lost confidence.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Marquis de Moustier had assumed direction of the foreign ministry on 2 October. “He was connected by marriage to the great family of the Mérodes in Belgium, leaders of the ultramontane party” (LoFTUS, I, 141).

    Google Scholar 

  6. ROTHFRITZ, pp. 109–11o.

    Google Scholar 

  7. ROLOFF, “Frankreich, Preussen und der Kirchenstaat im Jahre 1866,” FbpG, LI, Pt. I, (1939), p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., pp. 112–113.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For evidence of Prussian procrastination and evasiveness relative to the status of Luxemburg, see Lefèbvre de Béhaine to Moustier, Berlin, 2 November x866, FAE CP, Prusse/ 36o, no. 244; same to same, Berlin, 9 November 1866, ibid., no. 245.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, try November 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Note of Ambassador Benedetti, November x866, ibid., 15o. Cf. Tornaco to Perponcher, Luxemburg, 12 October 1866, LAE, H/16, in which the Luxemburg government declared that with the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation the Prussian garrison rights in the duchy had ended. The statement rested primarily upon the view that the Prusso-Dutch accord had been concluded by the Dutch king as a member of the Confederation, the dissolution of which terminated the accord; Villestreux to Moustier, The Hague, 4 November x866, FAE CP, Hollande/665, no. 54; same to same, The Hague, 19 November x866, ibid., no. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 3 November 1866, PRO FO 64/6oIB, no. 302. Cf. Montgelas to Hohenlohe, Berlin, 13 November 1866, APP, VIII, 157, ft. 2, who claimed that the award was given to Benedetti for his efforts to bring the Prusso-Italian alliance to fruition.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 20 November 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o; Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 24 November 1866, PRO FO 64/602, no. 337.

    Google Scholar 

  14. On 25 September, Bylandt, the Dutch minister, had turned back the archives to the Austrian government, and Wimpffen had been accredited at the Berlin court on 5 November.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 22 November 1866, HHStA, Preussen/92, no. 9B.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Benedetti to Drouyn de Lhuys, Berlin, 14 January 1866, FAE MD, Autriche/67.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 24 November 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o, no. 255. Cf. Bismarck to Thile, Putbus, 27 November 1866, APP, VIII, 171, in which he informed the secretary that he would participate in no measures that would disturb the relations between Prussia and the Italian government.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 17 November 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149; PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 (1926), pp. 404–405. Cf. RADOWITZ, I, 131.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/r5o.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Compiègne, 25 November 1866, APP, VIII, 16o-168; ROLOFF, FbpG, LI, Pt. I (1939), p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ibid., p. 133.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/15o.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 6 December 1866, BGW, VI, 176–177.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 8 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, ro December 1866, APP, VIII, 205–206.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., p. 206.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Benedetti to Moustier, 15 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o, Annex. Since his return to Berlin, Bismarck had received only the Austrian ambassador.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Same to same, Berlin, 14 December x866, FAE MD, Hollande/149. “Benedetti renewed his relations with the minister-president under completely different circumstances… their roles were reversed, we had nothing more to offer, but everything to ask” (ROTHAN, Souvenirs diplomatiques, p. 85).

    Google Scholar 

  29. See HAHN, p. 481, for the 15 December opening of the conference to debate the constitution of the North German Confederation. Cf. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 24 November 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o, no. 254.

    Google Scholar 

  30. LOFTUS, I, 150.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 14 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Same to same, Berlin, 14 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/360.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 14 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 16 December 1866, APP, VIII, 212; Goltz to Moustier, Paris, 17 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 18 December 1866, APP, VIII, 217–218; cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 26 December 1866, ibid., 242, in which he attributes Benedetti’s impatience to his southern temperament and to the fact that he had received his diplomatic training in the consular service in the Near East!

    Google Scholar 

  36. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 18 December 1866, ibid., 222.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, zo December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/360. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 20 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149. “Meanwhile the Luxemburg question remains for us a noli me tangere. It will be kept for eventual use for or against N[apoleon]” (Thile to Balan, Berlin, 22 December 1866, SASS, PJ, CCX VII, Heft 3 [September 1929], p. 268); KEUDELL, p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 20 December 1866, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Same to same, Berlin, 24 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o. Cf. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 26 December 1866, BGW, VI, 213–214.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 24 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid. 8 Ibid. 4 Same to same Berlin, 26 December 1866, ibid. For the text of the constitution, see NORDDEUTSCHER BUND, Bundes-Gesetzblatt des Norddeutschen Bundes, x867, Nr. I (Berlin, n.d.) pp. 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, i8 December 1866, FAE CP, Prusse/36o, no. 277bis. Same to same, Berlin, 20 December 1866, ibid., no. 281.

    Google Scholar 

  44. It may be noted that Benedetti at this time did not believe that formal military engagements existed between Prussia and the south German states (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 10 January 1867, PRO FO 64/617, no. 29). On the same day the ambassador made his analysis of the proposed constitution, 20 December, the Prussian lower chamber voted the annexation of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as of the territory ceded by Bavaria and Hesse. Four days later, 24 December, the decree ordering the union of the duchies with the Prussian monarchy was promulgated in Berlin (see Allerhöchstes Patent wegen Besitznahme der Herzogthumer Schleswig and Holstein, Berlin, 12 January 1867, HAHN, pp. 404–405. Cf. Dotézac to Moustier, Copenhagen, 3 January 1867, FAE CP, Danemark/251, no. 2, for the apprehension regarding the execution of Article V of the Prague Treaty).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bylandt to Zuylen, Berlin, 29 December 1866, RBZ, Pruisen/z866, no. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bismarck soon again complained of the ambassador and referred to the threatening language of Benedetti and Moustier as well (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 8 January 1867, ONCKEN, II, 167 ).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 5 January 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/36r.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Just prior to the renewed interest in the treaty project, the emperor had received from Budberg, the Russian ambassador in Paris, a formal offer of an entente relative to the Near East, where an insurrection in Candia against the Turkish overlord had revealed the possi-bility of Russia applying Napoleon’s principle of nationality. This proposal may have led the emperor to hope that Russian support might also be obtained to forward his own plans for Luxemburg and Belgium (PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 [1926], pp. 407–408; RADOwITE, I, 134; RHEINDORF, p. 55).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 3 January 1867, APP, VIII, 254–256, Cf. PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 (r926), p. 408.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. A. MATSCHOSS, Die Kriegsgefahr von 1867: die Luxemburg Frage (Bunzlau, 1908), pp. 72–73, who sees the Dutch king’s greed and the extravagances of his mistress, Madame Mussard, at the origin of the indemnity suggestions. Matschoss bases his opinion on the explanation offered by H. ASSER, De Buitenlandsche Betrekkingen van Nederland, 186o-1889 (Haarlem, 1889), P. 43, ft.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 7 January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o. Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 14 January 1867, APP, VIII, 303–305; ROMAN, Souvenirs diplomatiques, pp. 112–114.

    Google Scholar 

  52. The generals had supposedly been won over to Bismarck’s point of view about the evacuation of the fortress (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 14 January 1867, APP, VIII, 297–298 ).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, II January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149. Cf. Au/zeichnung fiber eine Unterredung Bismarcks mit Benedetti, Berlin, to [sic] January 1867, APP, VIII, 282–284.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Already on 13 January, the French envoy in The Hague had forwarded a draft treaty which was to regulate the transfer of Luxemburg to France (Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 13 January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, Annex). Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 17 January 1867, APP, VIII, 314.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 16 January 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/361, T. The foreign minister added that the imperial government was willing to reduce Prussia’s obligations under the proposed alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 17 January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149; Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 18 January 1867, APP, VIII, 314–315.

    Google Scholar 

  57. At that moment the emperor and Moustier gave Goltz all their confidence and did not even keep Benedetti au courant of what was said at the Tuileries and in Compiègne…. A whole month passed in Berlin without the situation becoming clearer…. Moustier left Benedetti almost without information“ (PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 [1926], pp. 408–410). Cf. OLLIVIER, IX, 158. Meanwhile in Paris, Moustier was accepting proposals from Budberg concerning the Near East crisis, in return for Russia’s neutrality re French aspirations in Belgium (PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 [1926], P. 413). Moustier in turn conferred with Goltz for Prussian support in the Near East, warning however that Prussian adherence to French policy in the Near East did not constitute a ransom for his compensation plans in Luxemburg (E. DRIAULT, ”Après Sadowa: la question d’Autriche et la question d’Orient, x8661867,“ Revue des études napoléoniennes, XXXV [September 1932], PP. 139–140). Benedetti was completely ignorant of these conversations, which however did not prevent him, at the court ball on 14 February, from strongly advising Aristarchi Bey, Turkish minister in Berlin, not to delay making the necessary concessions to appease the Christian populations. ”His object… was attended with perfect success, for on returning home the same evening, Aristarchi Bey telegraphed his government that his urgent advice was to make the necessary concessions à temps et spontanément.“ (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 16 February 1867, PRO FO 64/618, no. 8o). Cf. ”Mr. Benedetti… expressed in strong terms his annoyance at receiving no communications from his government on the Eastern question being thus left in perfect ignorance of their views and acts“ (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 23 February 1867, ibid., no. IOI).

    Google Scholar 

  58. On 19 January Bismarck informed Goltz of Moltke’s views that Luxemburg was the key railroad center between France and the Rhine (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 19 January 1867, APP, VIII, 316–317). Goltz had related this to Moustier, who had warned him not to carry reluctance too far (Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 25 January 1867, ibid., p. 331). The private letter from Moustier to Benedetti of 22 January has not been preserved (ODG, XIV, 184, ft. 1 ).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Cf. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, II January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149; Bylandt to Zuylen, Berlin, 29 January 1867, RBZ, Pruisen/1867, no. 47, who reported that Bismarck considered the Luxemburg question completely tied to the problem of maintaining or demolishing the fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 26 January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149. Benedetti also toyed with the idea of an alliance with Austria which would permit France to regain her natural frontiers, but at the cost of war; he concluded, however, that natural frontiers were no longer a necessity: the real ones were those which were or could become national frontiers. Cf. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 27 January 1867, APP, VIII, 334–335, in which he emphasizes Benedetti’s continued support of the alliance project in contrast to Moustier’s increasing indifference to it; KEUDELL, p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Cf. SCHÜSSLER, p. 64, for Bismarck’s plans to establish closer relations with South Germany. Benedetti thought that the Confederation was rapidly becoming “a formidable engine for war which, if it succeeded in embracing South Germany, would become the greatest danger to France” (Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 12 January 1867, HHStA, Preussen/95, no. PC).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 26 January 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  63. On 4 February Benedetti addressed a note to Bismarck asking whether he did not have any information to relay to him (Benedetti to Bismarck, Berlin, 4 February 1867, ONCKEN, II, 196, ft. 2), to which Bismarck replied, “Taking account of your flattering predilection for autographs, I take my pen in hand to state that I have no material to furnish you today” (Bismarck to Benedetti, Berlin, 4 February 1867, ibid.). The same day the ambassador, frustrated in his endeavors, complained to Thile: “Rien ne marche, we make no progress — and we have so little time — only eleven or twelve days before the opening of the legislative session — and then comes the Yellow Book; and you know how much depends on that, even to a comma, — I tell you I am frightened” (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 7 February 1867, BGW, VI, 258 ).

    Google Scholar 

  64. K. LANGE, Bismarcks Kampf um die Militär-Konvention mit Braunschweig, 1867–68, Bismarcks Kampf um die Militär-Konvention mit Braunschweig, 1867–68, “Quellen und Studien zur Verfassungsgeschichte des deutschen Reiches in Mittelalter und Neuzeit,” VII, pt. II (Weimar, 1934), pp. 1–4. Military discussions had taken place in Stuttgart between the ministers of war of Bavaria, Baden, and Württemberg to discuss the feasibility of a military system common to all three states (R. vox Mom,, Lebenserinnerungen, 1799–1895 [Stuttgart, 1902 ], II, 314–316 ).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 8 February 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/36r, T. For the constitutional developments in North Germany in 1866–1867, see PFLANZE, pp. 337 ff.; O. BECKER, Bismarcks Ringen um Deutschlands Gestaltung (Heidelberg, 1998), pp. 211 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 13 February 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o.

    Google Scholar 

  67. H. vox POSCHINGER, Fürst Bismarck und die Parlamentarier (Breslau, 1894–1896), I, 4–5; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 15 February 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/361, no. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Einberufungspatent far den Reichstag des norddeutschen Bundes, Berlin, 13 February 1867, HAHN, pp. 496–497.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See AD, 1867, I, 145, for the emperor’s speech. For Napoleon’s efforts to combat the rising tide of opposition, see CASE, pp. 227 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 15 February 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/361, no. 33; same to same, Berlin, i6 February 1867, ibid., no. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 18 February 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149. The ambassador did not let the opportunity pass without reminding Moustier that instead of making important communications through Goltz, he should have made them through the Berlin embassy (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 18 February 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/361).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, i8 February 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o. Cf. Director General of Justice to Tornaco, Luxemburg, 27 February 1867, LAE, H/28, for the arrival of a French agent, Baron Jacquinot, Under-Prefect of Verdun.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 18 February 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o. The resolution to take definite steps for the acquisition of Luxemburg may have been strengthened by the declaration of Budberg that Russia would not enter any coalitions against France and would endeavor to break up such coalitions if they were formed (ibid.; cf. PAGÈS, RHM, I, no. 6 [1926], 413 ).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Cf. HOHENLOHE, I, 184–187, for the desire of the Bavarian government to establish closer ties with the North German Confederation; Mom., II, 312–313; O. LORENZ, Kaiser Wilhelm und die Begründung des Reichs, 1866–1871 (Jena, 1902), pp. 18o-181, for the unification tendencies in Baden; E. BRANDENBURG, “Bismarck und die Reichsgründung,” Das Bismarck-Jahr; eine Würdigung Bismarcks und seiner Politik in Einzelschilderungen, eds. M. Lenz and E. Marcks (Hamburg, 1915), p. 181; PFLANZE, pp. 367 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  75. For the text of the king’s address, see NORDDEUTSCHER BUND, Stenographische Berichte über die Verhandlungen des Reichstages des Norddeutschen Bundes lin Jahre 1867 (Berlin, 1867), Vol. I (24 February-17 April 1867); cf. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 2 March 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/362, no. 45, in which he notes that the ambiguous wording of Article IV might decide the Prussian government to exclude Austria from such consultation.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Same to same, Berlin, 24 February 1867, ibid., no. 4o. On 23 February Bismarck had asked Crown Prince Frederick to suggest to Prince Louis that he propose that Hesse request admission to the North German Confederation (SCHÜSS.ER, p. 93). The ambassador was still unaware that alliances had been concluded in August 1866 with the south German states. He noted, however, that Bismarck was displaying great activity among the members of the Bundestag to convert as many deputies as possible to the support of his program (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 2 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 4 March 1867, ibid., 149. The ambassador’s own report of the interview with Bismarck is not extant. Moustier summarized the analysis of the ambassador relative to Bismarck’s views and asked Benedetti to verify it in a subsequent interview with the minister-president. Cf. Olimart to Blockhausen, The Hague, 5 March 1867, LAE, H/28. In his report to Goltz of 10 March, Bismarck complained that Moustier and Benedetti were trying to commit him to a statement, for use to overcome Dutch hesitancy, indicating that Prussia would not object at all to the transfer of Luxemburg (GEuss, pp. 210–211 ).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Cf. Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 4 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 4 March 1867, ibid., Allemagne/17z.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 8 March 1867, ibid., Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 8 March 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/362, T.

    Google Scholar 

  82. I have had an interview with [Bismarck] of which it is preferable that I give you a verbal account“ (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 9 March 1867, ibid.); Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 59 March 1867, ibid., no. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 15 March 1867, APP, VIII, 474.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Same to same, Berlin, 8 March 1867, ibid., p. 448.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Same to same, Berlin, 15 March 5867, ibid., p. 474.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 9 March 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/362, T. Cf. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, lo March 5867, BAE CP, Prusse/24, no. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 20 March 1867, APP, VIII, 491.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 4 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Same to same, The Hague, 9 March 1867, ibid.; same to same, The Hague, 10 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 13 March 1867, APP, VIII, 468–469; Lowther to Stanley, Berlin, 16 March 1867, PRO FO 64/6X9, no. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, ix March 1867, APP, VIII, 465–467.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Moustier to Baudin, Paris, 12 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/X49, T. Cf. J. HAMSTRA, De Luxemburgsche Kwestie, 1867 (Groningen, 1927), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  93. The indecision of the Dutch minister, the opposition of Prince Henry, and the fear of a violent reaction from the king had prevented Baudin from pressing the government (Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 14 March X867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T.; same to same, The Hague, 15 March 1867, ibid.; Exposé des négociations confidentielles qui ont eu lieu entre le gouvernement français et le cabinet de Berlin au sujet de Luxembourg, Paris, 15 June 1867, ibid., 15o). Baron Tornaco, president of the Luxemburg government, reported that the Dutch king would probably demand assurances of adherence of the Prussian government before making a decision (Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 16 March 1867, ibid., T.). To the French envoy, Moustier noted: “Make him understand the absolute political importance which we henceforth attach to the possession of Luxemburg. He can, if he says yes, obtain for himself considerable claims for our obligation, [just] as he can, by a refusal, create for us, as for himself, a very treacherous position” (Moustier to Baudin, Paris, 16 March 1867, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Same to same, Paris, 17 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 19 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  96. PAGES, RHM, I, no. 6 (1826), 421.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Lefèbvre de Béhaine to Moustier, Berlin, 19 March 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/362, T. The text of the treaty alliance with Württemberg was published on 23 March. It was on 24 March that the ambassador had an opportunity to question Bismarck about the reasons for making the alliances and for their publication at this time. The minister-president replied that they were published at the request of Hohenlohe. Contrary to the facts, he claimed that offers had been made to him during the peace negotiations, when he thought he could no longer count on the friendly disposition of the French cabinet, implying that the alliances had arisen more or less accidentally (Cf. BRANDENBURG, Untersuchungen, p. 72o). To Benedetti’s inquiries about offensive as well as defensive aspects of the alliances, Bismarck intimated that the German terms gave a different effect than the French translation on which the ambassador based his observations (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 24 March 1867, FAR CP, Prusse/362, no. 62). Cf. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 31 March 1867, HHStA, Preussen/95, no. 4. 1A.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Lefèbvre de Béhaine to Moustier, Berlin, 19 March 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/362, no. 56. Mr. Schraps, a deputy, called the attention of the Bundestag to the fact that Luxemburg, German territory, was not cited in Article I of the projected constitution. Bismarck, while not renouncing the view that the duchy belonged to Germany, replied that the government did not wish to do violence to the sovereign of Luxemburg, or to add another element to those which already menaced the peace of Europe. “[The minister-president’s] remarks about Luxemburg [were] oberfaul. I fear very much that Luxemburg will be lost for Germany” (Bennigsen to his wife, 21 March 1867, H. ONCKEN, Rudolf von Bennigsen, ein deutsche“ liberaler Politiker [Stuttgart, 1910], II, 23 ).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 21 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T. “Le roi a malheureusement réfléchi” (Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 21 March 1867, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 22 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 23 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 24 March 1867, ibid., 150, T.

    Google Scholar 

  103. William III to Napoleon III, [The Hague], 26 March 1867, ibid., 149; Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 27 March 1867, ibid.; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 27 March 1867, ibid. On the same day, the Prussian minister in The Hague was summoned by the king and requested to inform King William of the proposal made by the French government (Perponcher to William I, The Hague, 26 March 1867, APP, VIII, 512–513 ).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 28 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r49, T.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Same to same, Berlin, 26 March 1867, ibid., 15o, T. Cf. La Tour d’Auvergne to Moustier, London, 24 March 1867, FAE CP, Angleterre/739, no. 58; Mahon to La Valette, Eich, 25 March 1867, FAE CC, Pays-Bas, Eich-Luxemburg/6, no. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 28 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r49, T., 1 p.m.; same to same, Paris, 28 March 1867, ibid., 4 p.m.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Napoleon III to William III, Tuileries, 3o March 1867, ibid.; Moustier telegraphed the chargé d’affaires to have Tornaco come to The Hague without delay (Moustier to Villestreux, Paris, 3o March 1867, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 29 March 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Mahon to Moustier, Luxemburg, 3o March 1867, FAE CC, Pays-Bas, Eich-Luxemburg/6, T. The statement appeared in a government paper, L’Union, and was also distributed in printed hand bills. Cf. Prince Henry to Tornaco, The Hague, 3o March 1867, LAE, H/28.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 31 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T., 5 p.m.; Bismarck had suggested that the negotiations be postponed, to which Benedetti replied that it would be easier for the king to accept the union of Luxemburg and France than for the emperor to renounce it (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 3o March 1867, APP, VIII, 532). The ambassador thought Bismarck’s difficulty stemmed from the opposition of the military, the princes who supported them, and from the determination of the French government not to demolish the fortress once it gained possession (cf. Bylandt to Zuylen, Berlin, 29 January 1867, RBZ, Pruisen/r867, no. 47). Goltz suggested to Moustier that the negotiations be suspended, to which the foreign minister replied that everything was finished and nothing could make the French government pull back, whatever the consequences (Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 31 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T.; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 31 March 1867, APP, VIII, 545–546). Cf. Same to same, Paris, 3o March 1867, ibid., pp. 532–533, in which Goltz states that Benedetti and Moustier had brought about the situation in order to have a war, as the sole means of saving the dynasty.

    Google Scholar 

  111. The motivation for the interpellation originated in the Nationalverein, an association of nationalists and liberals who strongly opposed the cession of Luxemburg on grounds that the grand duchy was dominated by a German culture and was pro-German in sentiment. The Nationalverein had sent two observers to Luxemburg, one of whom was August Döring, later professor of philosophy at the University of Berlin. Their reports, published in the Elberfelder Zeitung, stressed the German aspect of the life and culture of the grand duchy (P. WENTZCKE. WENTZCKE, “Zur Luxemburger Frage von 1867,” Deutsche Rundschau, CXCIII [ December 1922 ], 227–229 ).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 31 March 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r49, T., 11:49 p.m. There is conclusive evidence that Bismarck welcomed the interpellation. In a letter to his wife, Bennigsen reveals that Bismarck did not want Luxemburg to fall into French hands, a desire shared certainly by the king, the generals, and the princes. On the 3oth, Bennigsen had a visit from Prince Frederick Charles, who seconded his determination to propose the interpellation. He discussed the situation on the same day with the minister-president, and his impression that Bismarck was “gladly letting himself be pushed” was confirmed in conversation with the conservatives with whom, especially Roon, he discussed his intentions on the 31st, and who agreed to support him. The crown prince as well had intimated his support, in the hope that a war might be avoided (Bennigsen to his wife, Berlin, 1 April 1867, ONCKEN, Bennigsen, II, 33–34). “I am certain that the National Liberals — through Bennigsen — have also conferred with Bismarck and that [he] welcomes the interpellation. Undoubtedly he wants to be able to say to Benedetti, ‘You see what the situation is, what the prevailing sentiment is; I can do nothing, even if I wanted to!”’ (BERNHARDI, pp. 352353). See POSCHINGER, Fürst Bismarck und die Parlamentarier, II, 98, for conversations between the minister-president and the National Liberals in which he expressed the fear that French insistence on obtaining Luxemburg would lead to war.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 31 March 1867, FAR MD, Hollande/ 149, T., II p.m.; Exposé des négociations confidentielles qui ont eu lieu entre le gouvernement français et le cabinet de Berlin au sujet de Luxembourg, Paris, 15 June 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r5o. According to the facts, Moustier had little justification to speak of a completed cession. His intent was undoubtedly to give Bismarck the opportunity to reply to the interpellation that Prussia had not been informed in time to oppose the transaction. The foreign minister did expect the completion of the negotiations on 2 April, since Baudin foresaw no difficulties (Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 31 March 1867, ibid., 149, T., 6:20 p.m.). Moreover, Moustier stated that the cession had been considered a fait accompli even before the Dutch king had entered into contact with the Prussian monarch (Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 1 April 1867, ibid.).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Cf. KEUDELL, pp. 356–357, who implies that Benedetti did not communicate Mous-tier’s telegram.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Bismarck has declined my suggestion to declare to the chamber that the cession was an accomplished fact, fearing that the question of war or peace would escape his control; these are his expressions“ (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 1 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/ 149, T., 10:42 p.m.).

    Google Scholar 

  116. For the Bennigsen-Bismarck exchange, see NORDDEUTSCHER BUND, Stenographische Berichte, Vol. I (i April 1867 ), pp. 487–489.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 1 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 65. Questions on the status of the grand duchy of Luxemburg were also asked in the British House of Commons on I and 2 April (GREAT BRITAIN, 3 Hansard, CLXXXVI [ 1867 ], 909, 981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Nothomb to Rogier, Berlin, 2 April 1867, BAE CP, Question du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg/ r, Pt. II, no. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  119. KEUDELL, p. 441; POSCHINGER, Fürst Bismarck und die Parlamentarier, III, 285.

    Google Scholar 

  120. King Grand-Duke requests your prompt presence here. Affair is serious, imperial reply has come“ (Prince Henry to Tornaco, The Hague, 1 April 1867, LAE H/28, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 1 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T. Cf. E. SERVAIS, Le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg et le traité de Londres de zz Mai 1867 (Paris, 1879), pp. 10911o, who discusses the arrival of an agent from the French ministry of the interior to prepare the execution of the treaty of cession. Goltz, too, discovered that the emperor was reluctant to forego the acquisition of Luxemburg (Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 2 April 1867, APP, VIII, 569). Cf. R. BLENNERHASSET, “The Origin of the Franco-Prussian War of 187o,” The National Review, XL (October 1902), pp. 220–221.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 2 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o. Cf. ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 275, ft. I. The ambassador continued to believe that Bismarck had given his advice to open negotiations with the Dutch king in good faith. “Benedetti always remained convinced, he repeated it to me to the end of his life, that Bismarck had been perfectly loyal in this Luxemburg question and that our failure was due not to his duplicity, but to the indolent slowness of Moustier and to the pusillaminous indiscretion of the king of Holland” (OLLIVIER, IX, 336). But Bismarck’s conversations with the deputies imply just the opposite (H. V. VON UNRUH, Erinnerungen aus dem Leben von Hans Viktor von Unruh, ed. H. von Poschinger [Stuttgart 1895], p. 281; Bennigsen to his wife, Berlin, 10 April 2867, ONCKEN, Bennigsen, II, 61; ft. 2, p. 161 above).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 3 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/ 149, T.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3 April 1867, ibid. He added that further opposition to a cession could be expected from the North German parliament, and that the discussion on the organization of the army would probably show a solidarity of views designed to emphasize the position taken in respect to the Luxemburg affair. For the reaction of French public opinion, see CASE, pp. 231–232.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 3 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Ibid.; cf. Zuylen to Bylandt, The Hague, 3 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 28o ft. 1; Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 4 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3 April 1867, ibid., T. Moustier’s position was more difficult because of the unpredictable course of the Prussian government. On the 3rd, Goltz had remitted a letter to Napoleon from King William, proposing an adjournment of the negotiations or, if a treaty of cession had been signed, that the affair be kept secret until after the legislative session. Moustier pointed out that the declaration made at The Hague could hardly be reconciled with the royal letter. Furthermore, a report had been received from St. Petersburg indicating that Bismarck had announced there that the Dutch king had decided not to cede Luxemburg (Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 5 April 1867, ibid., 150).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 6 April 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Cf. Loë to Tresckow, Paris, 5 April 1867, APP, VIII, 597–598.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 8 April 1867, HHStA, Preussen/ 95, no. 45B. Benedetti also displayed some bitterness about his treatment at Bismarck’s hands during the past year. “His exasperation with Count Bismarck and with the king and the way he believes himself to have been fooled knows no limit anymore” (ibid.). Cf. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 6 April 2867, FAE MD, Hollande/i5o, in which he stressed that time would permit Prussia to weld the forces of Germany into a powerful foe, a project which was then in its infancy; cf. same to same, Berlin, 6 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 72, in which Benedetti discussed the military legislation passed in the current session of the North German Bundestag.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 5 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o. Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 5 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 286.

    Google Scholar 

  132. I trusted Bismarck [and] he has betrayed me,“ remarked Napoleon to Pierre Magne on 5 April (DURIEUX, II, 90).

    Google Scholar 

  133. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 6 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r5o.

    Google Scholar 

  134. That he had given much thought to this was evidenced by his report of 6 April and in his conversation with Wimpffen.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 9 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r5o. Cf. ROTRAN, Souvenirs diplomatiques, pp. 273–274.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Many demands for interpellations had already been deposited before the session of 8 April when Moustier presented his exposé. The minister represented the Luxemburg affair as having arisen when France and Holland entered into a general discussion on the unresolved status of Limburg and Luxemburg after the dissolution of the Germanic Confederation. No reference was made to the compensation negotiations between Benedetti and Bismarck. Prussia had entered the affair only when the Dutch king had asked for the views of the Prussian monarch, who then invoked the stipulations of the treaty of 1839. To the demands of the critics, Thiers, Favre, Gamier-Pages, and others, to see the diplomatic correspondence, Rouher replied that no official correspondence existed since the question had not progressed beyond “a simple exchange of pourparlers” (FRANCE. CORPS LÉGISLATIF, Annales, 1867, XXI, t. 3 [8 April], pp. 237–240). A debate on the policy of the government was avoided when a number of interpellations were withdrawn and all nine bureaus of the chambers turned down the others (ibid., t. 4 [Io April], p. i). Cf. DURIEUX, II, 95–96, for the discussions between Magne, La Valette, and Rouher on 9 April, whether the government should accept the interpellations.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, II April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, II April 1867, ibid., T.; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, II April 1867, ibid. The official reserve of Benedetti did not prevent Bismarck’s charge that the ambassador was engaging in talk with other representatives which was designed to intimidate the Prussian government (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 11 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 317–318). Cf. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 15 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T.; Metternich to Beust, Paris, 18 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 338; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 16 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 24 April 1867, HHStA, Preussen/95, no. 49. He wrote that Benedetti had shown such a display of vindictive temper that it was embarrassing to his friends.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 13 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 86; cf. same to same, Berlin, 16 April 1867, ibid., no$188, in which the ambassador reported that the Prussian government was asking the other German states what attitude they would assume in case of a war against France. “The Prussian envoy Wentzel [on 24 April] read a circular of his government to me, in which the explanation is requested,whether or not we were prepared to stand on the side of Prussia if the Luxemburg question becomes a cause for war ” (DALWIGK, p. 321 ).

    Google Scholar 

  141. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 16 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 87; cf. La Tour d’Auvergne to Moustier, London, 11 April 1867, ibid., Angleterre/74o, no. 78; ibid., Annex; Moustier to La Tour d’Auvergne, Paris, 12 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/149, T. “The project which you have sent to me would be accepted by us if all the powers agreed to propose and recommend it to us, with the adherence of the king of Holland and the king of the Belgians. We would not want it to be thought that we invite such advice” [This was the project to unite Luxemburg to Belgium, give France territory along the Belgian border, and provide financial compensation for the Dutch king] (Moustier to La Tour d’Auvergne, Paris, 13 April 1867, FAE CP, Angleterre/74o, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  142. Beust to Wimpffen, Vienna, 9 April 1867, AUSTRIA. MINISTERIUM DES AUSSEREN, Austrian Red Book: Diplomatic Correspondence… from November 1866 to 31 December 2867, no. 1 (London, 1868 ), p. 47. The features of the Austrian proposals were almost identical with that outlined in London by the French and Russian ambassadors, but added another alternative: the neutralization of the duchy and the dismantlement of the fortress. Cf. Aufzeichnung Bismarcks über eine Unterredung mit Wimpllen, 12 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 315–317.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 18 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, T.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Cf. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 16 April 1867, ibid., no. 89, in which the ambassador wrote that Loftus had found Bismarck not enthusiastic but willing to consider the idea of a congress. Same to same, Berlin, 21 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/r5o.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 22 April 2867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. zoo. Bismarck’s departure had given rise to a multitude of conjectures, among them rumors of a dispute between the king and his minister. Upon receipt of this information,. Moustier immediately requested Benedetti to find out if Bismarck had perhaps gone to Pomerania for a meeting with Prince Gorchakov for the purpose of concluding an alliance with Russia (Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 23 April 2867, ibid., T.).

    Google Scholar 

  146. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 20 April 2867, HHStA, Preussen/95, no. 54B. But unbeknownst to the ambassador, Prussia had begun as early as 2 April to promote an Austro-PrussianBavarian alliance against France (Bismarck to Werthern, Berlin, 2 April 1867, HOHENLOHE, I, 222). Julius Fröbel, a south German publicist, made inquiries in Vienna on 4 April and reported Beust reserved, but not definitely opposed to the proposal (HOHENLOHE, I, 224225). Montgelas sought to verify in Berlin Hohenlohe’s opinion that a triple alliance was indeed possible (cf. Benedetti to Moustier, xi April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 8i, in which he concluded that Montgelas had sought to confirm rumors that the Prussian government was relenting in its intransigent attitude in the Luxemburg affair, in the hope that Bavaria might not have to carry out her alliance obligations). Count Tauffkirchen arrived in Berlin and conferred with Bismarck on 13 April concerning proposals which Hohenlohe had submitted to King Louis on io April, and which had been approved by the Bavarian monarch (HOHENLOHE, I, 228–229). The pact was to be applicable generally or else restricted to the Luxemburg affair; Tauffkirchen was to ascertain the obstacles to a triple entente, eliminate them and conclude the alliance (K. MÜLLER, “Die Tauffkirchensche Mission nach Berlin and Wien: Bayern, Deutschland, and Österreich im Frühjahr 2867,” Rietzler-Festschrift: Beiträge zur bayerischen Geschichte [Gotha, 1913], pp. 381–435). Having met with King William and believing the discussion in Berlin very encouraging, he left for Vienna. The talks with Beust, however, spelled defeat for the Bavarian endeavors. An implacable foe of Bismarck and Prussia, Beust speculated: “Picturing to our minds France as vanquished, can we expose ourselves to the chance of having the parchment on which the Treaty of Prague is recorded thrust into our hands and being thanked for its successful defense?” (Beust to Wimpffen, Vienna, 19 April 1867, AUSTRIA. MINISTERIUM DES AUSSEREN, p. 89. Cf. F. BEUST, Aus drei Viertel-jahrhunderten. Erinnerungen and Aufzeichnungen, 1809–1885 [Stuttgart, 1887], II, 119–12o). Benedetti reported that the reception Beust gave Tauffkirchen did not allow him to insist on the object of his mission (Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 22 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. ioi).

    Google Scholar 

  147. Cf. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 18 April 1867, ibid., T., no. 82; Goltz to Bismarck, Paris, 19 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 340–343; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 22 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. zoo; Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 21 April 1867, ibid., no. 84.

    Google Scholar 

  148. K. ZINGLER, Karl Anton, Fürst von Hohenzollern (Stuttgart, 1911 ), p. 201. “The Belgian minister in Berlin, Baron Nothomb, having detected that there was trading about Belgium, got the idea to connect [Belgium] to the royal house of Prussia. He negotiated the marriage of a daughter of Anton of Hohenzollern… with the Count of Flanders. Queen Victoria supported the project, and King William, whose consent was indispensable, gave it with haste. It was a noli tangere, a prohibition to touch Belgium…. Rouher and Moustier abandoned thus the Belgian dream and dreamed only about Luxemburg” ( OLLIvIER, IX, 168 ).

    Google Scholar 

  149. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 25 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T. “I gained the conviction, through my conversation with Benedetti, that whatever the thought of his government, he personally desires war because of resentment for his diplomatic defeats. It is a real misfortune for a chief of state to be served in such fashion as that by his agent” (Jules Devaux to Beyens, Brussels, 29 April 1867, BEYENS, II, 334). King Leopold’s communication had been prompted by rumors that the Luxemburg question would be discussed in the French chamber. A demand for an interpellation was made by Favre on the 25th, but was turned down by the bureaus on the 27th, after a dispatch from Rouher to Schneider on the 26th, suggesting that the question not be discussed (FRANCE. CORPS LÉGISLATIF, XXI, t. 4, [25–27 April 1867] PP. 155–156, 178 ).

    Google Scholar 

  150. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 25 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 107. “Although [King Leopold of Belgium], with great prudence and judgment abstained from any direct interference in the Luxemburg question during his stay in Berlin, I have reason to think that his visit here has been at this moment of great utility… in regard to the question of peace or war” (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 27 April 1867, PRO FO 64/62o, no. 242 ).

    Google Scholar 

  151. Victoria to William I, [Windsor Castle,] 22 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 351, ft. z. “My visit here has tumbled me in to the midst of the Luxemburg business, and I have had all the dispatches, and all the private letters of all the cousins submitted to me…. At present it seems that pressure should… be put upon Berlin (Disraeli to Stanley, Windsor Castle, 22 April 1867, G. BUCKLE, The Life of Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield [London, 2916–192o], IV, 470). Cf. Goltz to Bismarck, 23 April 1867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, I I, 350–351.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 26 April 2867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, T.; “Prussia was disposed to accept any honorable terms of arrangement. The first thing was to find a motive for a conference, and [Bismarck] thought, therefore, that Holland should apply to the European powers in regard to the position of the Grand Duchy, and, on her invitation, a conference should be proposed…. It would be impossible for Prussia to make any concessions previous to a conference which might be viewed or interpreted as concessions to France” (Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 27 April 1867, PRO FO 64/620, no. 238). Cf. Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 27 April 2867, ONCKEN, Rheinpolitik, II, 370–371.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Loftus to Stanley, Berlin, 27 April 1867, PRO FO 64/62o, no. 237. Cf. William I to Grand Duke Charles-Alexander, Berlin, 28 April 2867, WILHELM I., Weimarer Briefe, “Die Briefe Kaiser Wilhelms I.,” ed. J. Schultze (Berlin, 1924), II, 88–89, in which he states his surprise that the king of Holland had delayed so long calling a conference of the signatory powers of the 1839 treaty, and which he believed would settle the issue. Cf. L. SCHNEIDER, Aus dem Leben Wilhelms I., 1849–73 (Berlin, 1888), I, 306, for the peaceable attitude of the monarch.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 26 April 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. 1o9; same to same, Berlin, 27 April 1867, ibid., T. Moustier had complained about the bellicose language of the Berlin press (Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 25 April 2867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T.). For precautionary military measures decided upon by the Prussian government on 27 April 2867, see I.A.A.b. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 26 April 2867, FAE CP, Prusse/363, no. III; same to same, Berlin, 27 April 1867, ibid., T.; ibid., no. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Ever since the beginning of the controversy, the Dutch government had carefully stated that the Dutch and the Luxemburg governments were separate and distinct organs of state (Tornaco to Prince Henry, Luxemburg, 7 April 2867, LAE, L/5).

    Google Scholar 

  157. Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, 29 April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T.; Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3o April 1867, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Baudin to Moustier, The Hague, I May 1867, FAE CP, Pays-Bas/666, no. 12. Cf. La Tour d’Auvergne to Moustier, London, 3o April 1867, ibid., Angleterre/74o, T.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 3o April 1867, FAE MD, Hollande/15o, T.; same to same, Berlin, 2 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 120. Only a few days prior to this meeting, Bismarck had again made mention of Benedetti’s reserve toward him (Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 26 April 1867, APP, VIII, 738 ).

    Google Scholar 

  160. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 2 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 12o. Both Bismarck and Benedetti gave their consent when Oubril suggested a toast to the success of the London conference. When the toast was drunk, Bismarck lifted his glass toward the ambassador, a gesture which led Benedetti to remark later, “Que voulez-vous? C’était de la comédie” (Mont-gelas to Louis II, Berlin, r May 1867, APP, VIII, 738, ft. 3 ).

    Google Scholar 

  161. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 2 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 120. Efforts by the Nationalverein to organize public opinion in support of demands that the ties between Luxemburg and Germany be maintained continued up to the London conference (WENTZCKE, Deutsche Rundschau, CXCIII [December 1922], p. 229; cf. Leibling to Lammers, [Luxembourg,] 2 May 1867, ONCKEN, Bennigsen, II, 43, ft. 5 ).

    Google Scholar 

  162. It was clear to me already a few days ago that the minister-president wanted to approach Benedetti, when he spoke to me of his personal sympathy for the French ambassador, of his intellect and graciousness“ (Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 4 May 1867, HHStA, Preussen/95, no. 61A).

    Google Scholar 

  163. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 4 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 123.

    Google Scholar 

  164. I see that peace is still desired here and that war is basically abhorred, but that it will be precipitated the day war is considered inevitable. The official language of Benedetti is reserved but pacific. I wager, however, that he believes war inevitable and desires it“ (Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 8 May 1867, HHStA, Preussen/95, T.).

    Google Scholar 

  165. Moustier to Benedetti, [Paris,] 8 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, T.

    Google Scholar 

  166. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 8 May 1867, ibid. “To speak of a lust for war on Bismarck’s part is wrong. He will firmly accept war, if it is inevitable, but he will want to avoid it if our position as a power permits it” (Stosch to Gustav Freytag, Berlin, 6 May 1867, SToscH, p. I27).

    Google Scholar 

  167. Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, 9 May 2867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 128; Bismarck to Goltz, Berlin, 9 May 1867, BGW, VI, 389–39o. “The king received me immediately after my arrival…. He was in a very serious mood and said to me, pointing to his desk, `You see, there lies already the mobilization order for the entire army, and I only wait, with the greatest anxiety, for the report of the ambassador in Paris”’ (G. vox DIEST, Meine Erinnerungen an Kaiser Wilhelm den Grossen [Berlin, 28981, p. 21 ).

    Google Scholar 

  168. Moustier to Benedetti, Paris, 9 May 1867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, T.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Ibid. In a circular, Moustier discussed the armament question in detail. He pictured all French military preparations as defensive measures, and he rejected all accusations that France was arming for war or harbored aggressive designs (Moustier to diplomatic agents, Paris, 9 May 1867, FAE MD, France/Circulaires politiques, 1863–1869, t. 2126 ).

    Google Scholar 

  170. A Benedetti to Moustier, Berlin, Io May 2867, FAE CP, Prusse/364, no. 131.

    Google Scholar 

  171. La Tour d’Auvergne to Moustier, London, II May 2867, ibid., Angleterre/74o, T.

    Google Scholar 

  172. For text of the treaty see ODG, XVI, 437–439.

    Google Scholar 

  173. Bylandt to Zuylen, Berlin, 17 May 1867, RBZ, Pruisen/1867, no. 18z.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Wimpffen to Beust, Berlin, 18 May 1867, HHStA, Preussen/96, no. 66A.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ville, Luxembourg

    Willard Allen Fletcher

Authors
  1. Willard Allen Fletcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1965 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fletcher, W.A. (1965). The Luxemburg Compensation Project. In: The Mission of Vincent Benedetti to Berlin 1864–1870. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7547-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7547-8_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-0018-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7547-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation