The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-15 00:00:00

EAAL RUSSELL TO C. A, MITURAY, ESQ.

Foreign Office, Dec. 17.
Sir,—Her Majesty's Government have heard with sur-
prise and pain the language which has been held in reference
to the London Protocol of May, 1852.
The Powers which signed that treaty, or eventually be-
came parties to it, must recollect that it was made binding
not only on Denmark, tut also on Great Britain, France,
Russia, and Sweden, wlio were parties to the treaty, and on
all other States and Powers giving their consent or adhesion
thereto, and that it was the expressed object and aim of that
treaty, not to regulate the mutual relations between Den-
mark and Germany, but to serve as an essential agreement
in the general interest of Europe.

A violation of the engagement entered into by Denmark
towards Germany, in the years 1851 and 1852, is an offence
the reparation of which may be justly demanded. Such a
violation, however, cannot 'result in rendering a solemn
European treaty invalid towards other parties. to it The
promises made by Denmark, in 1852, in reference to
Schleswig and Holstein may have been for. Austria and
Prussia the prevailing motive for their becoming parties to
the Protocol of May, 1852, but if those powers do not re-
main faithful to their engagements, they cannot with a
shade of justice adduce as
,excuse that they were deceived
in their expectations rdative to the fulfilment by Denmark
of obligations whit:llW been undertaken at a former period
in other documents.

The entiro basis of treaty arrangements in Europe would
be overthrown, if such an excuse for the breach of a clear
and simple treaty could be admitted. Any Sovoreign,when
called upon to fulfil his engagements, might say, "My
reason for withdrawal frolirruch a treaty was, that I had
made another agreement with one of the parties •thereto.
This other agreement has been violated; my treaty with
you is, therefore, null and void."
Her Majesty's Government is convinced that the Court
of Dresden will understand that, if such a lineof agreement
were admitted as valid, every existing treaty would become
waste paper. I refrain from quoting cases in point, in
which such a light and inconsiderate mode of interpreting
treaties would prove seriously prejudicial to the German
powers themselves.

For the present, it may suffice her Majesty's Govern-
mat to declare that they would consider any departure from
the succession Protocol of 1852, on the part of those Powers
who had signed, or become parties to the said treaty, as
wholly incompatible with good faith.--I have, ac.,

(Signed) RUSSELL.
You are requested to leave a copy of this despatch with
Baron von Benet.

BARON VON BRUST TO CoUNT VITZIII34 SAXON MI-

NISTER IN LONDON.

Dresden, Dec. 29.

just communicated to me a
Count,—Mr. Murray hag
despatch relating to the affAirs of the Duchies of Schleswig
Holstein, of which I herewith subjoin a copy.
It will be easy for you to point out that Earl Russell's
despatch undertakes to establish an opinion in reference to
the validity of the London Protocol of May 8, 1852, which
was never entertained by the Royal Government; and I
presume that her Britannia Majesty's Chief Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs will consider it abortive to enter
into a discussion on such grounds. The Royal Government
finds itself in presence of a question which has arisen in
consequence of the demise of his Majesty Bing Frederick
VII. of Denmark, and been brought forward in the Federal
Diet, the organ of the German Confederation. The Am-
bassador of his deceased Majesty at the Diet presented his
credentials to be recognised as the representative of King
Christian IX. in his asserted capacity as Duke of Holstein
and Lauenburg. At the same time the agnate claims of the
Prince cf Augustenburg to the said duchies were submitted
to the Federal Diet by the authorised Bavarian ambas-
sador.

The Royal Government on its part will pursue no other
course than that dictated by justice. Having at the Federal
Diet voted in favour of measures which they considered es-
sential to ensure the complete carrying out of its resolutions
it entered upon the study of the succession question, and
will give its vote in accordance with the result of this exa-
tninati n.

As Earl Russell has been pleased to call our attention to
the protocol of May 8,1852, it may not be useless to make a
few observations on that subject.
The act in question, which was intended to establish a
new line of succession in Denmark, has been approved and
confirmed by the Danish Reichstag, but in order to make it
valid, and applicable to the German Duchies, it was neces-
sary to obtain the consent of the representative of the agnate
line of succession, then that of the States, and finally that
of the German Federal Diet.

Not one of these conditions hes been fulfilled. It is conse •
qu3ntly unnecessary for the Diet, in ordor to dispute the
validity of the treaty of May 8,1852, relative to the duchies,
to take into consideration its complaints against Denmark
for the violation during many years by that Power of the
obligations she had undertaken towards Germany.
When invited by the Powers signing the London proto •
col to become a party thereto, the Royal Government did
not withhold their consent—not participation—to a combi-
nation which, if Denmark had faithfully fulfilled her en-
gagements towards Germany, might have succeeded; for at
that time there was a prospect of obtaining the consent of
all parties concerned, which was indispensable to render the
treaty effectual. An attempt was not even made to secure
this participation, because it was clear that in face of the
violation by the Danish Government of its obligations, it
was impossible to arrive at such a result. In this manner
the treaty was left incomplete, and inapplicable in an essen-
tial part. The Powers signing the treaty cannot surely,
therefore, reproach the Federal Diet or its members.

The Royal Government, as the British Cabinet will
doubtless recollect, has already on a former occasion dis-
tinctly declared that it was not their intention to anticipate
the resolutions which the Confederation, through the organ
of the Federal Diet, might find it advisable to arrive at. The
ease which was foreseea at that time has presented itself
to-day, and the Royal Government make use of the liberty
which they wisely reserved.
I venture to hope that this explanation of the true state
of affairs will give Earl Russell a just appreciation of our
conduct, as his well-known Haase of right and justice leads
us to expect. It is in fact enough to possess honourable in-
go that the Royal Government never
therefrom,
eegd
tenth
ye tui
ego
unh swt t oei
will
dahce
akpvna
ero
ttwi
the
goodness, Count, to read this despatch
to the Chief Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and leave with
him a dopy of the game.

(Signed) BBusT.
The foregoing MS sent to Earl Russell by Count
Vitzthum, accompanied by the following memo-
randum :

COUNT VITZTHtM TO EARL RUSSELL.
Hobart-place, Jan. 4.
I wrote to your lordship this morning to request the
honour of an interview, but as you will scarcely be able to
see ree to-morrow before the Cabinet Council, at which I
hear the Holstein question will be discussed, I take the
liberty of sending you the subjein.ed copy of a despatch which
reached me this morning. It is the reply of Baron von
Beust to your lordship's despatch of the 17th December.
As you will doubtless remember, we have never used the
arguments combated by you in the document referred to,
and have at all times maintained that the rights of the
German Duchies are established on a strong and sure foun-
dation. One principal reason for not voting with the ma-
jority at the sitting of the Diet on the 7th December was
owing, perhaps, to our having been unable to discover any
formal connection bet Jaen the Danish obligations of 1851
and the treaties of 1852, although he did not wish to deny
the existence of a moral connection. We have not said, and
do not say, "The Treaty of 1852 is null and void so long as
Denmark has not fulfilled her engagements of 1851." w
say rather, merely—A treaty has been concluded in which
certain arrangements for the future have been prepared.
But the
made arrangements
ob being able to
introducehasnot issue; eventg ay and rightfully
occurred.
he
is alsoich theKingd
eaec
Fredericas said treatyNveda tovil. is certainly deceased
without
tthe
he
German u t
portion of
his possessions the new hereditary succession which the
signatories to the treaty of 1852 had in view, and which they
would have been bound to maintaitihad the above-mentioned
arrangements really thoroughly been carried out. As this
latter is not the case, the treaty of itself has not attained per-
fection on account of the non •accomplishment of three ma-
terial preliminary conditions.
1. The consent of the collective agnates.
2. The consent of the estates of Schleswig and Holstein.
3. The consent of the German Confederation.
German history affords an instance of striking similitude.
I mean the so-called "Pragmatic Sanction." Karl VI ,
failing male issue, desired to alter the existing order of
succession in favour of his daughter. He concluded treaties
with all the principal Powers. Did these treaties satisfy
him ? No. He held it for right and wise to lay the Prag-
matic Sanction before the Estates and Provincial Assemblies
of his different territories, and they accepted it. The conse-
quence of this was, that when at a later period foreign
Powers sought to rob Maria Theresa of certain portions of
her inheritance the people rose to defend the rights of the
Empress.
" Had Frederick VII. acted in the present case with the
same wis iota as Karl VI., and had the peep, of Schleswig
and Holstein openly declared themselves in favour of
Christian IX., as did the Austrians and Hungarians at that
time for the Empress, are you of opinion that Gefreany
would have stepped in and questioned the legality of the
succession which the Treaty of London sought to arrange ?
1 confidently hope your lordship will pardon these few