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

t.
(
Sftemiftp t
" -1 At 4
• 4
„ w-my
.-t-A :blow
.416 4.716
'4-4: it. Y--"
_... • -
v 4.r% ."AftiStz:.-110.11,414,;r5'
' 4
rijt.

-r•-)
1,1%g A.,E447
:e.s.
a S

temanced any idea of the sort. This, however, is of
the presumption that the Diet should tat in accord-
ance with treaties, and.sbould not, according as it
might be politically convenient, pass acy re: c'.aticnwi!hout, regard to Constitutional law. Supposing
writes Count Rechberg, that in deference io an ex-
cited public feeling the Diet were to adopt arbitrary
measures in regard to 13avaria, that country would
surely resist; and she mast, therefore, achucnl7ledge
that the effect of the vote of the majority must ho
in some measure restricted, especially when there i 3
a question of imposing a line of conduct upon A
r is. and Prussia which would he in coat; avention
of their obligation as European Po.,vera.
" With regard to the succession question, t he Diet
is perfectly independent of the London Treaty. Bat
Austria and Prussia must demand of it not to treat
this question arbitrarily, but keep strie-iy within the
limits of law and of its corn ph:no% King Cnrist.ja
IX. did not mount the throne h 7 vine;! of the Lon-
don Treaty, but of the law of sui.-'ee,,sion,
his pre.dec,ssor in his cly;eity of Kient I)_,llui,itk
and cf Duke of Holstein and Gerni:ln nuel
countersigned by the German and 1)..0.:5L I\liiiitters
on the 31st of July, 1853.
" The Diet. never protesfed ag•.:.nst this law, while
by its resolution of the 29th of July, 1832, 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 cf
this law as far as it affects Holstein and Lsucnburg
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
made to the Austro-Prussian proposal in the Diet,
which goes to the utmost limits that are reconcilable
with the defensive character of the Federal institu-
tions, while those limits are overstepped by the
Hessian project. 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 to the Confederation to establish
his claims on such country.
" When the Emperor proposed to extend the
right of the Diet to make war to cases in which the
balance of power in Europe was threatened, his
Majesty's fellow-princes rejected 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 assume the offensive
for the sake of securing to a Pretender the succession
to a country which does not belong to the Confede-
ration.

PRICE .4d.
STAMPED ....sd.

Herr von Bismark and the Prussian Chamber,

The following is the reply of Herr von Bismark
to the speech of M. Schulze, in the House of De
puties :—" Gentlemen,—The last speaker has given
a new meaning to the London protocol, and draws
from that document the right of succession of the
house of Augustenburg. The speaker grounds his
conclusion on the assumption that the protocol
maintains the rights of the Diet, as far as they de-
pend upon treaties. But that cannot, under any
circumstances, be the meaning of the London pro-
tocol. The principal article of that document, Art.
2, establishes the right of the succession in favour
of Christian IX. to all lands under the Danish
sceptre. It would have been useless to come to any
conclusion had it been intended to annul one para-
graph Eby another. The last speaker bas reproached
us with doing nothing for ' Germany.' Gentlemen,
there must be a great charm in the word 'Germany'
—(very true)—for I see that every one wishes to
speak of it, endeavouring to turn it to advan-
tage for party purposes. We have seen times
when it was German to turn to the Diet for
support, and when it was time to pursue a pro-
gressive policy towards it. You have reproached
us with having ignored Germany in order to
promote private interests. I can return the same
reproach : you ignore Prussia because it suits you
to do so—you wish to consider Prussia as a domain
of the National Verein, because it suits your interests,
The last speaker has brought forward an entirely
new phrase—he said that the minor States inclined
to Prussia for the maintenance of their indepen-
dence. The history of the last 15 years teaches quite
the contrary; the minor States have inclined to
Austria since the treaty of Bregeuz, because they
considered their independence was more endangered
by Prussia than by Austria. We have long had to
contend at the Diet against the latter in consequence
of the coalition caused by the natural anxiety of the
minor States for the sovereignty, and I have myself
participated in these contests. A new state of Schles-
wig-Holstein, such as they wish for, would in a
great measure look to us for support, for we should
have a country which would be in the same position
towards Denmark as a re-established Poland would
be towards Prussia. Our object is to live in peace
with the Scandinavian States. How are we to attain
this object, if it is to be attained, does not depend
upon us. The speech of the mover, and the con-
clusions which he drew from the present state of
things, compel me to go further into the discussion
than was my intention. We may presume, as we
consider the speaker the representative of the ma-
jority, that you will reject the loan, and that I was
deceived in
,the confidence that I placed in you,
Your principle motive for rejecting the loan is your
want of confidence in the present ministry. I have
therefore asked myself,' What must we, the "Cs-
sian ministers, do to gain your confidence? It
would have to completely ignore the Prussian
constitution, the Prussian history, and the feel-
ing of the Prussian people, by consenting to
establish the despotism of this house over
Prussia, and sealing the continued depen-
dence of the crown upon this house by with-
drawing the counter-signatures: of the Ministers.
You have plainly expressed this in the report, and
a previous declaration from me that it was a ques-
tion of a struggle between the House of Hohen-
zollern and the House of the Representatives has
been confirmed. It is impossible to conduct a calm,
orderly discussion with words with which the
speakers combat us, for you will admit that that
which would be allowable in individual deputies is
is not suited to me in this place," The Minister
then passed on to different parts of the report of the
committee, and said—" At page 7 you make the
right of the Crown on war and peace depend upon
your vote. At page 8 you express a resolution to
force the Government to action. That exceeds your
constitutional rights. If anything can wrest the
constitution out of the hands of the Crown it is
this word. One dares no longer say, I act in the
interests of Prussia, and I alt as a Prussian. An
open avowal of attachment to Prussian interests
and Prussian nationality is on your part impossible,
and well understood interest is naturally such as
you understand it. At page 15 you eay that at
your bidding the King should carry on a war of
conquest in order to win Sleswig for the Duke of
Augustenburg. If we wish to gain your confidence
we must gists ourselves up to you. What then
would the Ministers be other than Parliament
Ministers, but with God's help it will not come to
that. According to your version of our constitu-
tion, the King would be a personage with less in-
fluence over the affairs of Prussia than any influen-
tial functionary with whom it is necessary to
negotiate in order to obtain a majority. You dis-
avow our glorions past in not recognising our posi-
tion; and in placing Prussia under the majority of a
Diet, you place party interests above the interests of
the country ; you do not feel, and your resolution
proves it, for the Prussian people. This is why you
wish to express certain suppositions in reference to
the condition of the Prussian army, that very thing
shows how far you are from the people. If the
Prussian people felt as you do, I should have to say
that Prussia had outlived herself. But we have not
yet come to that. I remind you that Frederick
William I. declared that before all he would break
the power of the Junkers, and that he would sub-
stitute in theirstead the sovereignty as a rock. This
rock, gentlemen, is still in existence, and it forms
the basis upon which rests the position of Prussia
as a great Power, and that you shall not shake
either by your resolution, your votes, or your
National Verein.

" Or, on the other hand, is the actual occupation
of Holstein—actual in spite of the resolution of the
Diet—to be deemed satisfactory (geniigend)? Is
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 under the
protection of the Federal troops, with the denger
of Europe presently finding Holstein in the pos-
session of Germany and Schleswig in that of .11t-n-
-mark ? Austria and Prussia will taka the resoon-
isbility neither for this nor for a covert conquest Lf
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 handE, 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 a❑ 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 Germs:ny 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 Gra..any respects
or transgresses the bounds within which she is
legally restricted.'"