By George Louis Beer.
Historian; winner of the first Loubat Prize, 1913, for his
book on the origins of the British Colonial system.
In the course of his solemn speech of Aug. 8, 1914, in the House of
Commons Sir Edward Grey quoted some remarks made by Gladstone in 1870 on
the extent of the obligation incurred by the signatory powers to the
Quintuple Treaty of 1839 guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium. Shorn
from their context as they were, these sentences are by no means
illuminating, and it cannot be said that their citation in this form by
Sir Edward Grey was a very felicitous one. During the paper polemics of
the past months these detached words of Gladstone have been freely used
by Germany's defenders and apologists to maintain that Great Britain of
1870 would not have deemed the events of 1914 a casus belli, and that
its entrance into the present war on account of the violation of
Belgium's neutrality was merely a pretext. During the course of this
controversy Gladstone's attitude has in various ways been grossly
misrepresented, Dr. von Mach of Harvard even stating in the columns of
THE NEW YORK TIMES that Gladstone had declared the Treaty of 1839 "to be
without force." But, apart from such patent distortions, Gladstone's
real position is apparently not clearly defined in the mind of the
general public, which is merely seeking for the unadulterated truth,
regardless of its effect upon the case of any one of the belligerents.
Shortly after the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 the
Prussian Ambassador in London informed Gladstone, then Prime Minister,
that some time prior to the existing war France had asked Prussia to
consent to the former country's absorption of Belgium, and that there
was in the possession of the Prussian Government the draft of a treaty
to this effect in the handwriting of M. Benedetti, then French
Ambassador at Berlin. This communication was obviously made, as Lord
Morley tells us, with the object of prompting Gladstone to be the agent
in making the evil news public and thus of prejudicing France in the
judgment of Europe. Gladstone thought this "no part of his duty," and
very shortly thereafter, at the direct instance of Bismarck, this draft
treaty of 1866-7 was communicated by Baron Krause of the Prussian
Embassy in London to Delane, the editor of The Times. On July 25, 1870,
it was published in the columns of that paper and aroused considerable
anxiety in England.
It immediately became imperative upon the British Government to take
some action. As Gladstone wrote to Bright, the publication of this
treaty
has thrown upon us the necessity of doing something fresh to
secure Belgium, or else of saying that under no circumstances
would we take any step to secure her from absorption. This
publication has wholly altered the feeling of the House of
Commons, and no Government could at this moment venture to
give utterance to such an intention about Belgium. But neither
do we think it would be right, even if it were safe, to
announce that we would in any case stand by with folded arms
and see actions done which would amount to a total extinction
of the public right in Europe.
The Special Identical Treaties.
A simple declaration of Great Britain's intention to defend the
neutrality of Belgium by arms in case it were infringed seemed to
Gladstone not to meet the special requirements of the case as revealed
by the proposed Treaty of 1866-7 between Prussia and France. His main
object was to prevent the actual execution of such an agreement, by
means of which the two belligerent powers would settle their quarrels
and satisfy their ambitions at the expense of helpless Belgium. Hence,
on July 30, the British Government opened negotiations with France and
Prussia and within a fortnight had concluded separate but identical
treaties with each of these powers. According to these treaties, in case
the neutrality of Belgium were violated by either France or Germany,
Great Britain agreed to co-operate with the other in its defense. The
preamble of these treaties states that the contracting powers
being desirous at the present time of recording in a solemn
act their fixed determination to maintain the independence and
neutrality of Belgium,
as provided in the Treaty of 1839, have concluded this separate treaty,
which,
without impairing or invalidating the conditions of the said
Quintuple Treaty, shall be subsidiary and accessory to it.
Article III. further provided that these Treaties of 1870 were to expire
twelve months after the conclusion of the existing war, and that
thereafter the independence and neutrality of Belgium would "continue to
rest, as heretofore," on the Treaty of 1839.
These documents tell a plain tale, which is amply confirmed by the
proceedings in Parliament in connection with this matter. On Aug. 5,
1870, while the negotiations leading to the above-mentioned treaties
were still pending, questions were raised in the House of Commons about
the recently published abortive Treaty of 1866-7 between Prussia and
France. In reply Gladstone stated that
the Treaty of 1839 is that under which the relations of the
contracting powers with Belgium are at present regulated;
and that, while he could not explain the intentions of the Government
"in a matter of this very grave character in answer to a question," he
hoped to be able to communicate some further information in an authentic
manner. Three days later, as these treaties with France and Prussia had
been virtually concluded, Gladstone was able to satisfy the anxiety of
the House and outlined their terms. He explicitly stated that, after
their expiration,
the respective parties, being parties to the Treaty of 1839,
shall fall back upon the obligations they took upon themselves
under that treaty.
After Gladstone had finished speaking the leader of the opposition,
Disraeli, took the floor and pointed out that, as a general proposition,
when there is a treaty guarantee so explicit as that expressed
in the Treaty of 1839, I think the wisdom of founding on that
another treaty which involves us in engagements may be open to
doubt.