The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-26 00:00:00

ER

4.: 1

rr;11 7.ZZ

i/vi,
texanced any idea of the sort. This, h 10P.13,16,4t ;:,,
the presumption that the Diet should h CitkirTrAl-14.
ante with treaties, and should not, acco ---!!
might be politically convenient, pass any resataion.Jl
without regard to Constitutional law. Supposing,

writes Count Rechberg, that in deference to an ex-

cited public feeling the Diet were to adopt arbitrary
measures in regard to Bavaria, that country would

surely resist ; and she must, therefore, e. eknuwledge
_ _

hat the effect of the vote of the majority must be

in some measure restricted, especially when there is

a question of imposing a line of conduct upon. Aus-
e.ria and Prussia which would be in contravention

of their obligation as European Powers.
" With regard to the succession question, the Diet
is perfectly indepmdent of the London Treaty. But
Austria and Prussia must demand cf it not to treat

this question arbitrarily, bat keep strictly within the
limits of law and of its competency. King Christian
IX. did not mount the throne by virtue of the Lon-
don Treaty, but of the law of succession, made by
his predecessor in his capacity of King of Denmark
and M Duke of Holstein and German Prince, and
countersigned by the German and DAnish Ministers

on the 31st of July, 1853.
"The Diet never protested against this law, while
by its resolution of the 29th of July, 1852, when
the London Treaty was already concluded, it ap-
proved the Danish proclamation of the 28th of
January of the same year, which was to the same
purport as this law. It is true the Diet can still
exercise its authority against the carrying out of
this law as far as it affects Holstein and Lauenburg
but it can only do so in a constitutional manner,
and it cannot act without affording a proper hearing
to all parties concerned.
" Count Rechberg continues :

"We cannot too deeply regret the opposition
mace to the Austro-Prussian proposal in the Diet,
which goes to the utmost limits that, are reconcilable
with thy` defensive character of the Federal institu-

tions, white those limits are overstepped by the
Hessian proleet. Article 2 of the Federal Pact,
Articles 35 and 37 of the Final Act of Vienna, for-
bid the Confederation to occupy a non-German
country in order that a Prince who is not yet re-
cognised as a Federal Prince may possibly at a
future period apply vo the Confederation to establish
his claims on such coon try.

" ' When the Emppr or proposed to extend the
right of the Diet to make war to cases in which the
balance of power in Eurye was threatened, his
t,
Majesty's fellow-princes rejeet.ed the proposal be-
cause it might have the effect of entangling the Con-
federation in political complications. And yet the
Diet is to be now entitled to assumu the offensive
for the sake of securing to a Pretender the succeesion
to a country which does not belong to the Confede-

ration.
‘" Or, on the other hand, is the actual cccuration
of Holstein—actual in spite of the resolution of the
Diet—to be deemed satisfactory (geniig end)?
Prince Frederick, while his case is still pending,
and his appearance in Holstein places the conduct
of Austria and Prussia in a dubious light,. to be
allowed to organise his future government UM der the
protection of the Federal troops, with the danger
of Europe presently finding Holstein in the pos-
session of Germany and Schleswig in that of Den-
mark? Austria and Prussia will take the respcn-
isbility neither for this nor for a covert conquest of
Schleswig, and as they possess full means as great
Powers of establishing the rights of Germany in
this matter, no choice is left to them but to take the
case into their own hands, instead of abiding by
Federal resolutions, which are either dilatory in
their nature or devoid of constitutional character.
" We will, however, hope as long as possible
that our language, which, however serious, is meant
to be friendly, will find an echo with our allies, and.
will deter them from bringing affairs in Germany
to a rupture. We hope this especially of the Cabi-
net of Munich, which has so often shown its wisdom
in former complications, and of which the influence
would serve to bring other States round to the views
of Austria and Prussia, and thus prevent a dissolu-
tion of the unity of Germany on the point at issue.
We cannot conclude without expressing our convic-
tion that this question will be solved with honour
or loss to Germany according as Germany respccls
' or transgresses the bounds within which she is
lQgally restricted.' "