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

AUSTRIA AND BAVARIA,

The following is the precis of a despatch from
Baron Schrenck to the Bavarian Minister in Vienna,
of the 31st December, 1863, and of Count Rech-
berg's reply, of the 10th of January, 1864 :
" Baron Schrenck commences by saying that as
the London Treaty of 1852 is binding neither on the
Diet nor Bavaria, in tha opinion of the latter the
execution resolved upon against King Frederick
VII., as Duke of Holstein and Lauenburg, could
after his death no longer be proceeded with, but
that those Duchies should be occupied by the Con-
federation in security of those rights which it is its
duty to preserve. He is aware that in the existing
state of affairs such a course might lead to a general
war ; but the responsibility would not lie with those
who in defending these rights are fulfilling a sacred
duty, while the chances of such a result are in his
opinion, equally entailed if these rights are dis-
regarded.
" Baron Schrenck goes on to say that the obliga-
tions by which Austria and Prussia are bound by
the London Treaty are of a very doubtful nature;
firstly, because that Treaty could only acquire the
force of law after receiving the hitherto wanting
sanction of the nearest heirs, and of the representa-
tive assemblies of the countries upon which it bears ;
and secondly, because the Federal obligations of the
two great Powers are anterior to the treaty, and
because the conditions under which they entered
into the treaty have never been fulfilled by the op-
posite party. Ho concludes by hoping that Austria
and Prussia, in their own interest and in that of
the Confederation, will declare the London Treaty
of May, 1852, to be not binding on them, and will
instruct their representatives at the Diet to effect a
quick solution of the question of succession, to
which Bavaria considers the claims of the Prince of
A ugusten
nech
burgasberg,
grounded on law.
" Count
in his reply, enters into a
lengthy dissertation, to the effect that the Diet has
no right of occupation, and that it is incompetent
to pass any resolution in this sense. With regard
to the proposal that Austria and Prussia should
submit to be out-voted at Frankfort, he allows that
the Federal laws admit of no veto on the part of an
individual member of the Confederation, and that
the Emperor in his scheme of Reform had discoun-

s
vt( :..p,2:iv.
mi !nced any idea of the sort. This, ho, ri#44k9A s7ol
'life pregumption that the Diet should act,i,.p:ao74o;C;-.fi,
i,trp,„
:nee with treaties, and should not, aceo t 14i-ggiirt*:l,l
r_night be politically convenient, pass any tt3F
-see-111
- a-: r
%Niihau!: regard to Constitutional law. Sus;
a
writes Count Rechberg, that in deference to an/V- -
cited public feeling the Diet were to adopt arbitrary
measures in regard to Bavaria, that country would
surely resist; and she must, therefore, acknowledge
that 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 ccnduct upon Aus-
tria and Prussia which would bo in contravention
of their obligation as European Powers.
" With regard to the succession question, the Diet
ie perfectly independent of the London Treaty. But
Austria and Prussia must demand of it not to treat
this question arbitrarily, but keep strictly within the
limits of le,w 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 of Doke 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 cf
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
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.

‘" 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)? Ie
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 Den-
mark? Austria and Prussia will take the respon-
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 bat 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 respects
or transgresses the bounds within which she is
legally restricted.' "