1852

A proposal for the restructuring of the Upper House was introduced. FW had become obsessed with the issue, seeing it as part of the larger game of finding a way to legally escape his oath and ditch the constitution. The next day he wrote a memo: 'I demand to be the one and only organiser of the First Chamber', an arrangement he described as essential for the 'honour, prestige, and future of the Prussian crown'. Leopold Gerlach was appalled by the King's plans and thought they'd be a disaster. He preferred to leave the constitution alone and let it collapse in contradiction at some point. FW's plans also alienated some of the Kreuzzeitung network, including Stahl, who feared a British-style House of Lords would exclude many of the Junker gentry. Manteuffel gave FW only lukewarm support. There were rows rumbling on for months (details in Barclay, p245ff). On 7 May 1853 there was a formal constitutional revision which led to a decree in late 1854 altering the composition of the First Chamber. The upper house, after 1855 called the House of Lords (Herrenhaus), no longer had any elected members, the King had the right to appoint but had to select from certain categories in an elaborate compromise. Cf. 28/9/53.

Russell introduced a Reform Bill lowering the county franchise to £20 and the household borough franchise to £5.

Russell's government fell. Russell had introduced a Bill for reform of the 'local' militia, Palmerston put down an amendment (on Friday 20th when most had gone to the country) to remove 'local', MPs supported Palmertson. Russell resigned. 'I have had my tit for tat with John Russell', said Palmerston. Derby came back to London. The Queen first spoke to Aberdeen and Wellington but both declined. She then summoned Derby.

Derby took over as PM of a minority government, Disraeli as Chancellor. This became known as the 'Who?Who?' Ministry because the Duke of Wellington called out 'Who? Who?' when the jobs were announced in the Lords. (Derby and Disraeli wanted to bring Palmerston into the Cabinet but he declined. Derby made Disraeli Chancellor and Leader of the Commons: 'You know as much as Mr Canning did. They give you the figures.') Protectionism still very divisive. Derby and Disraeli feared urban radicalism and swamping of county representation by rural voters but knew free trade was dominant in Parliament. Disraeli wanted to pursue other tax reform rather than return to protection. Derby thought France incapable of 'rational self-government' and inevitably ruled by a master. He knew Napoleon because in 1848 Napoleon had served as a special constable with Derby's eldest son during the Chartist demonstrations. He wanted friendly relations with France, Austria and Russia; peace in Europe without Britain getting entangled in its alliances and rivalries so the British Empire, founded on trade and the navy, could flourish; what he called 'a calm, temperate, deliberate and conciliatory course of conduct' without interference in internal affairs of European states. His strategy on protection was to keep the party together and let the next election resolve it — he and Disraeli expected free trade to win again and then they could move on. They would pass some sensible things, such as militia reform, before an election.

After months of needling, he fought a pistol duel with von Vincke. It came after a speech (date?) in the Landtag (he had given up his seat according to the law in autumn 1851 and been re-elected). In a debate on the defence budget the liberals pushed for a strengthening of the Landwehr. Old arguments resurfaced about 1806. Again he warned, as in 1847, against mistaking the view of the big cities, often misled by 'ambitious and deceitful demagogues', for 'the true Prussian people' who would know 'how to bring the big cities to heel, should they rise up once again, even if it means obliterating them from the face of the earth'.

Bismarck's account in a letter to his mother-in-law (4/4, p120 JS):Vincke had attacked him in the Landtag then challenged him; they drove out to a beautiful spot by a lake; 'the weather was so beautiful and the birds sang so merrily that all sad thoughts disappeared as soon as I got there. I had forcibly to avoid thoughts of Johanna for fear of weakening'; the challenge was reduced from four bullets to two; Bismarck refused to apologise for his comments; 'we both took our pistols, shot on the command ... and both missed... I would have preferred to continue the fight. Since I was not the person insulted, I could say nothing. That was it, everybody shook hands.

Schwarzenberg unexpectedly died aged 51. Count Karl von Buol-Schauenstein ('Buol') appointed foreign minister.

Gall (p114): Bismarck was instructed to explore a Prussian initiative to involve the Bund in agreements over S-H that needed formalising (partly to offload responsibility for unpopular measures, partly a gesture of goodwill to Vienna). Bismarck strongly opposed. In a letter drafted 6-7/4 he wrote: a crucial goal of Schwarzenberg's policy was 'to absorb Prussia's external activity in that of the Confederation and to develop more and more the representation of the latter by the presidential power... The entry of the whole Austrian Empire into the Confederation would provide a basis, and tariff unification at least a building-site, for the system [i.e the Schwarzenberg system] and I have repeatedly had occasion, both in private conversation and in official proceedings, to convince myself that the presidency would welcome every opportunity of involving the Confederation in diplomatic negotiations as a single, integrated power.' Maybe this will change given Schwarzenberg's death but there's still no reason to make a risky concession now. He also thought it would not even work because of opinion in the Confederation. Thun agreed with him and the proposal was shelved for the moment.

Disraeli's Budget speech (for interim budget, main budget see December). Tried to bounce Derby with a very pro free trade speech, signalling he'd surrendered on the issue.

Treaty of London. Austria and Prussia promised to respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy. Succession was awarded to Christian, whom Germans henceforth referred to as 'the Protocol Prince'. Denmark promised never to incorporate Schleswig. After signing, the issue of the Bund acceding cropped up repeatedly. Bismarck kept insisting the Bund should be kept out.

FW summoned him to Potsdam. Told Bismarck he should go to Vienna as substitute for the ill Ambassador. FW gave him a letter for FJ which stressed Bismarck's 'hostility even to the very roots of the revolution' and stressed FW's 'unchanging, urgent hope that Your Majesty and I are wholly at one in the truth that our triple [i.e including Tsar], steadfast, devout, and vigorous concord is the one thing capable of saving Europe and our mischievous and yet so beloved German fatherland from the present crisis'.

He found Vienna unpleasant. He was disliked for his behaviour in Frankfurt and Vienna wanted a CU with Prussia which he opposed. 'A certain degree of similarity in the matter of consumption is a necessary basis for community of interest in customs; even the difference of interests within the German Zollverein ... is productive of difficulties, only to be overcome by that goodwill which springs from national cohesion.' While in Vienna, gossip poisoned his relations with Manteuffel. (In 1852/3 Manteuffel was also feuding with conservatives and the Kreuzzeitung over his spin doctor, Quehl.)The Ambassador's recovery allowed Bismarck to leave and return to Frankfurt which pleased him.

Bismarck wrote to Manteuffel after the mission that he had understood the purpose as to make relations more friendly 'without giving any ground on the tariff question, without creating unnecessary tensions and without allowing the importance of the tariff question and the divergence of opinions on the same to grow any more than necessary and begin to influence other questions as well as relations in general between our two powers.' Why did he write this letter? Gall: he discovered from Wagener that 'the rumour is being very deliberately put about in Berlin that I did not properly understand it or even that I exceeded my instructions'. Gall: the view did exist and Bismarck knew it was held in the circle around Wilhelm, where the shame of Olmütz was still keenly felt, and at the Foreign Ministry where Manteuffel viewed Bismarck with increasing distrust. Gall: despite intense efforts, he did not shake these suspicions and both camps now saw him as an unreliable character who said different things to different people depending on the moment, and Manteuffel was convinced Bismarck was trying to push him out of office. The Kreuzzeitung blasted government policy for being too pro-Austrian which Manteuffel saw as an attack on himself by Bismarck. Gall stresses (p112): the division between FW, Gerlachs, Manteuffel sersus Wilhelm's circle was not so great, while Bismarck's desire for a major change of direction and counter-offensive against Austria was not supported by either circle. Bismarck did not think a ministerial role with FW was likely. In his Memoirs he looked back on this period: 'He [FW] looked upon me as an egg which he had laid and hatched himself and in cases of differences of opinion would have always had the feeling that the egg wanted to be cleverer than the hen.' Further, FW suffered from 'fits of autocracy, with his often abrupt changes of view, his irregularity in matters of business, and his accessibility to uninvited backstairs influences ... pharmacopolae, balatrones, hoc genus omne [Ambubaiarum collegia, pharmacopolae, mendici, mimae, balatrones, hoc genus omne — The flute-girls' guilds, quacks, beggars, actresses, buffoons, and all that breed — Horace]'.

Some liberal reforms of March 1850 were repealed.

Disraeli, speech to electors of Buckinghamshire: 'The time has gone by when the injuries which the great producing interests endure can be alleviated or removed by a recurrence to the laws which, previously to 1846 protected them from such calamities. The spirit of the age tends to free intercourse and no statesman can disregard with impunity the genius of the epoch in which he lives.'

Derby dissolved the House for an election in July. Free trade continued to have the majority in Parliament. Derby continued as PM of a minority government.

Ludwig wrote to Leopold Gerlach: 'All we can do is accept the anarchy, as the French say; we must accommodate ourselves to the fact that it exists and that we can't get rid of it. Anarchy isn't totally intolerable for us. We've more or less got used to it.'

Bismarck's son Bill born. [KL's/Wikipedia dates for the births of all kids are different to Pflanze??]

Autumn (EF) Bismarck gave up his seat in Landtag.

After a row over an appointment, in which FW characteristically tried to appoint Radowitz to run military education without informing his Minister President, Mantefuffel threatened to resign (again) when he found out. FW begged him to stay and agreed a cabinet order that dramatically increased the powers of the Minister President: 1) only the Minister President and minister of war could henceforth have direct access to the King, the MP got the right to sit in on other meetings; 2) the MP gained the right to proclaim the affairs of a ministry to be a matter for general cabinet discussion. (This became relevant to the final showdown with Bismarck and Wilhelm II in 1890.) Manteuffel was depressed by his dealings with FW and the constant chaos caused by his freelancing but like Gerlach was resigned to his duty of being 'used up'. Throughout the 1850s FW bounced between Gerlach's ständisch patrimonialism (closest to his heart), Manteuffel's statist neo-absolutism, Hinckeldey's repression and crypto-Bonapartism, and Stahl's constitutional monarchism.

Duke of Wellington died. (Derby got the news while visiting the Queen at her new purchase, Balmoral, and wrote to his wife that the place was wretched, the shooting poor, and he felt obliged to let Albert win at billiards.) Wellington had an unprecedented lying-in-state in Westminster Hall. In autumn, fears across Europe that Napoleon would declare an empire and invade Belgium. Pressure on Derby to increase military expenditure.

French Senate announced a referendum proposing a Second Empire.

Bismarck wrote a long letter to Manteuffel deploring the King's anti-Bonapartism.

Disraeli budget.Very difficult backdrop. Blake (p329): 'In the decade preceding Disraeli's budget, government expenditure varied between £48m and £55m. Rather over half of this, about £28m, went on the service of the National Debt. The other principal item was the armed services. From 1825 to 1852 expenditure on the Army, including the Ordnance, which counted as a separate service until 1854, averaged £8.75 m, on the Navy £6.5m. Civil expenditure ran at about £5m-6m. When in opposition everyone talked about extravagance and the need for economy, but no one who had any experience seriously believed that substantial cuts could really be made. The service of the Debt could not be much diminished. Expenditure on the armed services tended to rise with technical innovations, and any attempt at reduction met severe opposition from the Court... On the revenue side recent budgets had shown receipts of about £20-21 m from the Customs, £14.5 from the Excise, £6m-7m from the stamp duties, £4m from a variety of direct taxes, and £5m-5.5m from the unpopular income tax, reimposed, after an interval of twenty-six years, by Peel in 1842. Income tax was defended as a temporary measure designed first to remove the deficit inherited from the Whigs, secondly to tide over the loss to the revenue incurred by the great tariff revisions of 1842 and 1845. These had been very successful: the remission of a large number of vexatious duties had greatly increased trade; the reduction to a low level of many others had not only increased the volume of trade but, after a year or so, actually augmented the revenue, for higher consumption outweighed the effect of lower rates. But income tax remained intensely unpopular.

Then a war scare swept London, the services demanded higher budgets and Derby sided with them. (For details cf. Blake p330ff.) It was pro-free trade: no import tariffs, other tax changes to help agriculture (e.g reduction in malt, tea taxes); proposed modifying income tax to tax earned ('precarious') income less than unearned ('realised') income. Initially praised in many quarters but hostility across Parliament grew as it was debated. On 16/12 at the climax of the battle, Disraeli tried to defend the budget, attack and divide opponents and proclaimed, amid a dramatic thunderstorm as backdrop, 'This, too, I know, that England does not love coalitions.' Amid passionate scenes, Gladstone denounced him in a devastating speech. After a 3am division the next day the budget was defeated. In the gallery watching, Derby said, 'Now we are properly smashed; I must prepare for my journey to Osborne to resign.' (In complex negotiations to try to find votes, Disraeli talked to Bright who, it seems, recorded that in discussing morality in politics, Disraeli waved away such talk with 'We came here for fame', cf. Blake p343. Derby disapproved of Disraeli's plotting with Radicals.)

Aberdeen took over as PM with a coalition of Whigs, Peelites; Russell as Foreign Secretary, Gladstone as Chancellor, Palmerston as Home Secretary. (Palmerston said the HO was much less work than the FO. He worked on London's sewers, child labour laws, pollution, prisons.) Croker's verdict: 'You have died a death so ignoble that it has no name and the coroner's verdict is found dead! Why did you not die in the Protestant cause - or something that some party could take an interest in.' Derby retreated for Christmas to his estate where he shot rabbits and muttered, 'There goes Gladstone' etc. Disraeli thought Tory backbenchers the product of 'the wretched school and university system', ignorant of 'the ideas of their own time' and distracted from Parliament by field sports. They distrusted him as did Derby who suspected Disraeli had led his younger son astray into gambling and had undue influence over his oldest son and would 'do anything and act with anyone' for office. In 1853 a depressed Derby would complain that 'real political power was not to be had in England: at best you could only a little advance or retard the progress of an inevitable movement'; the only posts of power remaining were the Governor Generalship of India and the editorship of The Times. Initially Derby thought the Aberdeen coalition would quickly collapse.

Blake: before 1852 it was normal for opposition leaders to treat many government proposals on their merits but Disraeli opposed everything and pushed the idea that this was the duty of the 'Opposition'. Derby disagreed: he advised against consolidating by 'an active and bitter opposition ... the present combination between those who have no real bond of union and who must, I think, fall to pieces before long if left to themselves'. Derby also realised that much of the cohesion of the new government was based on hate for Disraeli and thought vehement opposition would consolidate this hate. He also did not want a repeat of 'Who? Who?' and wanted to wait until he could bring over defectors to strengthen a government.

To Leopold Gerlach: For Prussia and Austria to achieve an 'ultimately essential understanding', the 'threads' of such an understanding could not be spun from Frankfurt but 'only between Vienna and Berlin direct, from Cabinet to Cabinet ... if possible untouched but at any rate unruptured by our domestic quarrel over German politics... Regarding the great and noble ideas of our most gracious Lord, Vienna will continue to be unreceptive as long as it does not once again find itself in deep water, and therefore our and Austria's German policies necessarily remain incommensurable. The advantage we achieve is that the consequences of our marital tiffs do not make themselves felt beyond the frontiers of Germany.' Gall: i.e he was telling them — viz German politics the Bund could not be the basis for a joint policy, new solutions were needed, though the two could pursue conservative solidarity, as the Gerlachs wanted, in European politics. But in reality he was looking for a chance to play the European card against Austria because he saw the European level as the level at which Prussia could gain in Germany. Gall: this is a great example of the trickiness of interpreting some of what Bismarck said in the 1850s, as he tried both to push Berlin towards what he wanted while keeping in with the Gerlachs and seeming to remain in sync with traditional conservative solidarity. In the Crimea and Italian wars he thought he saw such opportunities to use the European balance of power to advance Prussian interests. Both attempts failed and worsened his reputation as an 'unprincipled gambler'.

Russell in Lords (interesting it sat between Christmas and NY then): 'The truth is that for the last 30 years the principles of the foreign policy of this country have never varied.'