On the 9th, again, he writes to Dresden:
The line taken by Saxony destroys confidence in diplomatic relations with that State. (No. 4, 502.)
On January 18 he writes to Lord Bloomfield:
You are instructed to represent in the strongest terms to Count Rechberg, and, if you shall have an opportunity of doing so, to the Emperor, the extreme injustice and danger of the principle and practice of taking possession of the territory of a State as what is called a material guarantee for the obtainment of certain international demands, instead of pressing those demands by the usual method of negotiation. Such a practice is fatal to peace, and destructive of the independence of States. It is destructive of peace because it is an act of war, and if resistance takes place it is the beginning of war. But war so begun may not be confined within the narrow limits of its early commencement, as was proved in 1853, when the occupation of the Danubian Principalities by Russia as a material guarantee proved the direct cause of the Crimean War. (No. 4, 564.)
It is only because I do not wish to weary the House that I do not read it all, but it is extremely well written. ['Read.']
Well, then, the dispatch goes on to say:
Such a practice is most injurious to the independence and integrity of the State to which it is applied, because a territory so occupied can scarcely be left by the occupying force in the same state in which it was when the occupation took place. But, moreover, such a practice may recoil upon those who adopt it, and, in the ever -varying course of events, it may be most inconveniently applied to those who, having set the example, had flattered themselves it never could be applied to them. (No. 4, 564.)
Well, the invasion of Schleswig is impending, and then an identic note is sent to Vienna and Berlin in these terms:
