DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
before I conclude. It is often said, that the succession of King Christian
IX 
is beyond all doubt legitimate in the kingdom of Denmark itself, even if
not in 
the duchies. But it is a matter of fact, that the different remunerations
which 
preceded the London treaty of 1852, and the Danish succession law of 1853

as well as the acquiescence of the Danish Diet, were only given for the purpose

and on the assumption that the different component parts of the Danish 
monarchy should remain united under the sceptre of King Christian IX. If

this combination should go to pieces, the question of the Danish throne succes-

sion revives in its whole extent. A second circumstance, not to be overlooked,

is, that the demand now heard in Germany for a separation of the duchies
from 
the kingdom of Denmark does not agree at all with the legal position which

the Duke of Augustenburg claims for himself. In the protest of the hereditary

Prince of Augustenburg, in the year 1859, against the Danish law of succession,

as well as in the deed of renunciation which his father hastened to issue
at the 
news of the death of King Frederick VII, there are not only claims upon 
Schleswig and Holstein, but eventual rights of inheritance on other lands
now 
governed by the house of Oldenburg. Here, therefore, the possibility was
not even 
excluded that Germany might throw itself into a general war, only in order

that the Danish monarchy might be ruled by a Duke of Augustenburg, instead

of a Duke of Glukeburg. (Cry of bravo !-sensation.) I repeat, that I express

no opinion about any point of the succession question, but I only wish to
warn 
against a too one-sided judgment. Shall I now resume in a few words the lead-

ing principles by which the imperial government intends to be guided in this

important affair t I have no hesitation in declaring that it lays the greatest

weight on the joint action of Austria and Prussia-that it is firmly determined

in this question, as in all others, to prove unhesitatingly its regard for
law 
and for treaties, and that it is not less firmly determined within the boundaries
of 
law to enforce with all its power the interests of Germany and of our German

countrymen in the north. (Bravo! in the centre.) 
Mr. Motley to Mr. Seward. 
No. 45.]                        LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 
Vienna, January 23, 1864. 
SiR: It is of course impossible for me to communicate any news to you in
regard 
to the current history of Europe. The telegraph and the post inform you of
the 
events as they rapidly succeed each other, and it only remains for me from
time 
to time to furnish such commentaries as may help to elucidate the present
and 
the immediate future so far as my opportunities allow. I see nothing to alter

the opinion which I have for some time expressed in this correspondence,

that a war of some kind in Europe is imminent and almost inevitable. 
As you have doubtless observed, the Diet at Frankfort, by a decisive majority,

rejected the Austrian-Prussian motion for taking possession of the duchy
of 
Schleswig in pledge for the enforcement of the stipulations entered into
by 
Denmark, as alleged by the two great German powers in 1851, upon which the

London treaty of 1852, as is asserted, was subsequently founded. 
The majority of the Diet which voted against Austria and Prussia were in

favor of much more stringent measures against Denmark, and were disposed
to 
proceed at once to occupy Schleswig, with the hardly concealed intention
of 
severing that duchy as well as Holstein from all connexion with the Danish

kingdom. Had Austria and Prussia submitted to the will of the majority of

the Bund, the result would have been the formal proclamation of the Duke
of 
Augustenburg as legitimate sovereign of both duchies, and his instalment
by 
the whole lpower of the Bund. 
 
140