Abstract
In the years following the separation of Belgium, the Dutch adhered to the policy of playing a passive role in world politics with steadily increasing determination. Foreign ministers soon learned that any participation in power politics, no matter how minor the part, would be quickly rebuked by parliament and public opinion. This was, for example, the experience of Foreign Minister Jhr. P. van der Maesen de Sombreff (1862–1864). At the time of the Polish Rebellion in 1863 the great powers sent notes to Russia expressing disapproval over the manner in which the rebellion was suppressed. At the suggestion, it was generally assumed, of Napoleon III the Dutch minister of foreign affairs had also sent a note. Members of the States-General first learned of it through the press. When interpellated, the minister admitted that a note had been sent and justified it on humanitarian grounds. An attack on the minister’s act was led by Groen van Prinsterer, the leader of the Anti-revolutionary Party, who branded the note as an act of intervention, a departure from the policy of neutrality. He solemnly warned the foreign minister of the danger of becoming involved in a Napoleonic war. The foreign minister survived this parliamentary storm,1 but this good fortune was not to be repeated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Note
A resolution disapproving his act failed of passage. Asser, H. L., op. cit, pp. 3–8.
De Bruine, J. A., Staatkundige geschiedenis van Nederland in onzen tijd 1848-1887, III, pp. 19–20; Asser, H. L., op. cit, pp. 92-4.
De Bruine, H. op. cit, III, pp. 30–32.
See Colenbrander, H. T., Gedenkstukken, IX, 2e stuk, p. 486. Quoted by Smit, C., op. cit, p. 144.
The treaty refers to it as a “duchy.”
Asser, H. L., op. cit, pp. 35ff. There was criticism of the Government’s policy at the time of the restoration of the Germanic Confederation in 1851. Members of the States-General held that the Confederation had expired in 1848 and that the acts of the Dutch government with respect to the matter constituted a re-entry of Limburg into the Confederation. See De Bruine, op. cit, I, pp. 168ff.
Crown Prince William, who was strongly Francophile, lived in Paris for many years and died there June 11, 1879. His mother, Queen Sophie, a member of the House of Wurtenberg, was likewise an ardent admirer of French culture. She possessed marked liberal ideas and was known as “La Reine Rouge.”
See Carroll, E. Malcolm, Germany and the great powers, 1866-1914: a study in public opinion and foreign policy, pp. 36ff.
Treaty between Great Britain, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Prussia and Russia relative to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Duchy of Limburg (London), May 11, 1867. Treaty may be found in Select treaties and documents, 1815-1916. Edited by R. B. Mowat. W. H. de Beaufort, Dutch historian and statesman, was convinced that Bismarck wanted war with France and the Netherlands but that his plans miscarried. Bismarck, according to de Beaufort’s interpretation, wanted his minister at the Hague to make the casus belli statement to King William III after the latter had ceded Luxembourg to” France and not before. Fortunately for the peace of Europe the minister made the statement before the cession had been irrevocably made, thus enabling William III to withdraw from the arrangement with Napoleon III at the last moment by the express assurance that the cession of Luxembourg would not take place against the wishes of Prussia. After this assurance by King William a declaration of war by Prussia was no longer possible. Nieuwe geschiedkundige opstellen, II, p. 29.
De Bruine, op. cit, III, p. 337.
Asser, op. cit., loc. cit
“De betrekkingen met het buitenland,” by Asser, T.M.C., in Eene halve eeuwe, historisch gedenkboek, uitgegeven door Het Nieuws van den Dag bij inhuldiging van Koningin Wilhelmina, II, Chap. IV.
Minister van Zuylen van Nyevelt quoted Bismarck as saying to him, “Vous avez sauvé paix de l’Europe.” De Bruine, op. cit, III, p. 344.
De Bruine, op. cit, III, pp. 348-49. See also Orange Book, Diplomatieke bescheiden betreffende de Limburg-Luxemburgsche aangelegenheden, 1866-1867.
For an account of this parliamentary battle see Schets eener Parlementaire geschiedenis van Nederland, van 1849 tot 1901, by van Weideren Rengers, W. J., I, pp. 361-412.
In 1877, during the Russo-Turkish War, the Netherlands Government sent a note to the Porte reproaching the Turks for inhumane acts in the war. The sending of this note was sharply criticized in parliament.
Luxembourg’s consular representation likewise continued through the Dutch foreign service, but with the creation of the Belgian-Luxembourg Customs Union in 1922 this function was shifted to Belgium.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1959 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vandenbosch, A. (1959). The Luxembourg Affair. In: Dutch Foreign Policy Since 1815. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6809-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-6809-0_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-6811-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-6809-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive