The Sun.
London, England, 1849-12-10 00:00:00

cessor, insomuch as by the simultaneousdiss olut
of the German Diet the very organiz taxi of the Con-
federation was dissolved; hence the Central Power
could only be considered in the light of an authority,
created from the momentary necessity of a direction of
the general affairs, and provisionally recognised; but of
no other more extended signification, even if; by its
monarchical form, it was not unfit to be the expression
of the Confederation, that is to say, of an association
of independent states, enjoying equal rights; and if de-
prived of the foundations of its existence by the disso-
lution of the German National Assembly, it had not,
de jure, ceased to exist. According to the reasoning of
M. de Bodelschwingh, it is not the fedi ral right, as de-
prived of its organ it perished with it, but solely the
effects still subsisting from that right, as well as the
conscience of forming part of one common whole, which
maintained the states in a community, and pre-
served Germany from a complete disorganization."
(This dispatch, which is of great length, then
enters into a refutation, point by point, of the
declaration made by M. DR BODELSCHWINGH, and
continues then) :
It is quite evident that the existence of the Federal
Constitution, consequently of the Confederation itself, is
not subordinate to the existence of the German Diet;
that it has been practicable, by universal consent, to
replace the latter by a new organ representing the Con-
federation in its totalty; that the institution of such an
organ is a duty incumbent upon all the members of the
Confederation; that each of them has consequently the
right of demanding such an institution; and, finally,
that there is the possibility of obtaining, by the individual
expression of the will of each, a manifestation of the
will of all.

" This would suffice to prove that the Federal Consti •
tution was not abrogated by the dissolution of the
German Diet, and that the Confederation itself remains
undissolved. In support of our assertion, we may quote
the resolution of the Diet of the 12th July, 1848, as also
the Convention of the 30th Sept. last. By the resolu-
tion in question, the exercise of all rights and obligations
passed by common consent of all the states to a Central
Provisional Power. It is, therefore, inexact to affirm
that, in conse queue of the dissolution of the Diet, the
Constitution was without an institution to represent it
in its totality, and which could be regarded as the con-
stitutional organ or its will and of its acts. This institu-
tion was created by common consent, and according to
the conditions exacted by the Constitution, it was to
remain in vigour until the definitive solution of the ques-
tion of the new Constitution of Germany.
" By the convention of the 30th September, Prussia
recognised the Central Provisional Power as the sue
cessor of the German Diet, legally invested with its
rights and obligations."
" After thest, explanations wo may expre3s our con-
viction :

" 1. That the federate state projected by Prussia may
find itself in contradiction with the Federal Constitution
which still exists de jure.
" 2. That it is inadmissible to draw a distinction be-
tween the Federal Constitution and the rights and obli-
gations resulting from the federal act, as they are inse-
parable from it, as they reciprocally balance each other,
and that such a distinction can be based only on an
erroneous conception of the Federal Constitution, a
substitution of the form for the essence,

"3. Th4t, consequently, all rights and obligations
resulting from the Federal Cons, itution, insomuch as
they do not refer directly to the primitive form of the
federal organ, and are not, therefore, applicable to the
given circumstances, have an object.
" 4. That it does not suffice to reserve to the states not
included in the alliance of the 26th of May their rights
and obligations guaranteed by treaties, if that alliance,
by its practical consequences, should endanger those
same rights and obligations.
" Consequently, it is our duty earnestly to desire
( Wir mussen duher dringend wunchen) that the prin-
ciples enouneed by the Minister of State, Bodelschwingh,
in his official capacity, be rectified by the Prussian Go-
vernment, insomuch as we could never permit them to be
carried out (da wir dieselben nicht zur Geltung gelangen

lassen konnen).
" Your Excellency will transmit a copy of this dis-
patch to the Aliniiter of Foreign Affairs, and request
him to induce his Government to pay attention to our
just desire.—Vienna, Nov. 12, 1849."

The Cologne Gazette states that the energetic
reply presented to the above by Count BERNSDOREF
on the part of Prussia, has elicited a formal protest on
the part of Austria, which was presented to the Cabi-
net of Berlin on the 4th. It coincides in all respects
with the prospective announced by Her VON PRO-
KEscli (the Austrian Ambassador at Berlin), when
he communicated the contents of the much spoken of
dispatch of the 12th November.
It is rumoured that Count BRANDENBURG was
about to resign the Premiership of Prussia, and that
he would be succeeded by INIANTEusTEL.