The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-19 00:00:00

provided that the King of Prussia should support all the
propositions of the King of Denmark for altering the suc-
cession and for preserving the integrity of the monarchy.
Across this document was written, "Meyendorff had the
settlement of all these articles," Meyendorff being the Rus-
sian ambassador. This explained the change of policy on
the part of Prussia, and why it was that the Prussian troops
were withdrawn with the secret intention to leave the
duchies to their fate. This treaty of peace was sent to this
country, accompanied by a despatch from the Earl of West-
moreland, in which he stated that the Russian Minister
had been unremitting in his efforts to bring about the re-
sult of these negotiations. Then, in 1851, the King of Den-
mark, still entertaining his project of incorporating the
duchies, sent his Minister of Finance to Vienna to propose
that Schleswig should be separated from the German Con-
federation and attached to Denmark. In 1852 the King
of Denmark formally promised that h 3 would do nothing
to disturb the union of Schleswig and Holstein. He
hoped the house would bear in mind that the object of the
duchy was only to maintain the fundamental law of the
state, but the object of the King was to bring about an incor-
poration between the duchies and Denmark. The repres-
sive measures were still going on, and, in consequence, op-
position arose throughout the duchies. But the policy had
come to a head in the treaty of May, 1852. But that was
not really a treaty. If seven people entered into a contract
for an illegal purpose, that contract would not be considered
binding; if seven persons united to declare that property
which was settled upon the eldest son should not go to the
eldest son but to a distant relative, that would have no force
whatever, and this was an exactly parallel case of that of the
treaty of 1852. The Germans to this day call it not a treaty,
but the protocol of London of 1852, and Constantine, who
came in under it, was called to this day the Protocol Prince.
But the treaty was of no effect without the consent of the
Diet. The consent of the Diet had never been given, and
therefore the signatures of Austria and Prussia were invalid.
He knew from the best authority that Prussia was most
anxious to do away with it, and be believed that Austria
would be very willing to adopt the same view. There was
also our signature, and that of France, with Russia, but
we had since gone to war with Russia; all treaties with
Russia were broken by the war, and therefore on this ac-
count this treaty, not having been renewed, was invalid.
The treaty was still in abeyance; it did not come into effect
till the death of the present king, and it proposed then that
the succession should jump over 19 heirs; it was to go in
future only through the male line, and no future son of
Constantine by another wife would be allowed to succeed.
Now it followed that if it was right for us to enter into
such a treaty, it would be right for other nations to enter
into such treaties with regard to us. It was the first time,
with one exception, that England bad ever entered into a
treaty of succession; and what was proposed in this ease
was to do for a constitutional state that which they
should do for themselves. The house knew absolutely
nothing about the origin of the treaty; the first intimation
was conveyed in an article in the Times newspaper two days
after the signature, in which it was stated that Lord
Palmerston, after some hesitation, was induced at last to
sign the protocol ; but if the House of Commons was to hold
its share in the government of the country, surely they
ought to be made acquainted with the acts of the Ministers,
which they were either to endorse or condemn. But no-
thing had ever been told them about this protocol of London
or the negotiations that preceded it. Lord Palmerston
stated three months before the protocol of Warsaw was
signed, that her Majesty's Government had steadily and
systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share
in these negotiations. The reports of the Diet, however,
showed that the protocol of London was signed on the 2d
of August, 1850, nine months before the declaration of the
noble lord. It appeared by the secrecy of the transaction
that the noble viscount was ashamed of the protocol, and it
has been said that there were political difficulties at the
time, and that the noble lord signed the protocol for the
sake of retaining office for one year—that it was for the
convenience of a Minister that these things were done—
that the succession was altered, and the fundamental laws
of the State violated. After the death of Christian and his
two sons the rights of Russia were to revive—rights as
they were now called, but which were before regarded as
claims only, and very doubtful claims, and which did not
originally extend even to the whole of Holstein.
The noble lord was proceeding, when an hon. member
moved that the house be counted, and there being only 38
members present, the house was adjourned at half-past
seven.

CONVOCATION OF THE PROVINCE OF
CANTERBURY.

Yesterday morning both Houses of the province of Can-
terbury assembled at Westminster for the despatch of busi-
ness. As it was known that the repel tof the Committee
appointed to consider the subject of "Essays and Reviews"
would be presented, there was a very large attendance of
members.