The Express.
London, England, 1847-02-02 00:00:00

which he had received truep my m-

war to a

demenoe, in whieh a Spanish primes was named as the riaisdi-
data who appeared to the British government to be the most
eligible, and the moat likely to prove acceptable to the people
of Spain." This is not the only order in which the saute of
Prince Leopold of Coburg is mentioned in the despatch of
19th July, which caused me to say that that despatel was
likely to produce is his favour the effect of an iedirs et
recommendation ' • it is the formal text of the two paragraphs
which I have already quoted, and which I reproduce again :
"The candidates to the hand of the Queen are reduced to
three, namely, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, nod tee two
sons of Don Francisco de Paulo. I omit Count Trapani and
Count Montemolin, as there seems no chance of the
choice falling on either of them." There was three-
fore a chance that the choice might fall on Prince Leo-
pold of Coburg, for, if not, why should not Lord Pal-
merston have omitted him as well as Count Trapani and
Count Montemelin? H aving th us established himself that there
was a chance for the Prince of Coburg, Lord Palmenton
adds " Among the three above-named candidates, the
government of her Majesty can only express its sincere
desire that the choice may fall upon him meat likely to
assure the happiness of the Queen and the proeperity of the
Spanish nation." Assuredly in theme two paragraphs there
is something fu different from the single order in which the
name of Prince Leopold of Coburg is mentioned, although
do nut regard that circumstance as indifferent. It matters
little if the despatch of 19,h July was a personal instruc-
tion to M. Bulwer not to be communicated to the Spanish
sotion. M. Bulwer was necessarily to regulate his
soaduct and his language according to those instruc-
Mons. The views and the intentions conteiiird in
the despatch were to he made manifest in the
actions and the words of the minister to whom it was rd-
dressed. It was the depths of the affair with which we had
to occupy ourselves, and not with the mere form of the com-
munications and influences. In reading that he, however,
referred M. Bulwer to an instruction received from his pre-
decessor, that is to say, to the despatch addressed on the
22nd June by Lord Aberdeen, to the Duke of Sotomayor,
Lord Palmerston always forgets that the: despatch only men-
tions as candidate to the hand of the Queen of Spain the
Infant Don Enrique, who ennui, says Lord Aberdeen, the
most suitable ; whilst the despatch of 19th July mention.
three, the Prince of Coburg and the two son. of Don Fran-
cisco de Paul, whom Lord Palmerston presents. as equally
suitable and equally acceptable by the English government.
[ln answer to that part of Lord P.'s letter, which corrects
the punctuation of his despatch, M. Ouizot says] :—" I shall
not insist on the erroneous situation recalled by those
paragraphs, the errors of which Lord Palmerston
acknowledges, if ho did not maintain that this erroe
is:different and that the phrase which he quoted u coming
from me, sod which was not from me, was the substance of
a preceding passage of my despatch of the sth Oct. Ido not
either recognize my ideas in the resume given of them by
Lord Palmerston, a bit more than I recognized my words in
the quotation he made. I never thought nor Raid that the
court of Spain had such an inclination for the Coburg com-
bination, that if the British government did not oppose it, it
might be presumed that arrangement was likely, by • simple
act of la user alter, to have inevitably taken place I thought
and said, that if on the me hand the government of the king
had persisted in opposing the desires of the Spanish govern-
ment, for the marriage either of the Queen or of the Infanta
with the Duke de Dfontpensier, whilst, on the other hand,
the English government accepted, if but by en act of laisser
alter the Coburg combination, that combination would pro-
bably have succeeded. I added, that in presence of that
situation, the government of the king had changed its attitude
and offered a different combination to the free choice
of Queen Isabella and her government. This is • faithful
resume of what I said in that part of my despatch of .sth
October, and this resume: differs essentially from that which
Lord Palmerston persists in giving, although he acknow
ledges the error of his quotation:—" M. Guizot acknow-
ledges (says Lord Palmerston (118) that it was from Lord
Aberdeen that he received the fleet information of the over-
ture made in May last by the court of Madrid to the Duke
of Saxe Coburg. But he states that, as the communication
from Lord Aberdeen was confidential, he did not think him-
'elf at liberty, without Lord Aberdeen's permission, to may
from whom it came. This might be a reason for not men-
tioning the circumstance at all, but surely it was no rea-
son for mentioning it in such a way u to give to those
who might be unacquainted with the facts an erroneous
impression as to the course of the transaction. I have not
sought to give an erroneous impression on the first source of
the information which I had received on the subject of the
step taken by the court of Madrid with the Duke of Coburg.
I simply abstained from indicating. that source as long as I
thought I could not do so with right and conscience ; and
the surprise I expressed was on the conduct of the English
minister at Madrid, contrary to his instructions. "M.
Guixot denies," says Lord Palmerston 0 19), " that the
Marquis of Mira lions was sent to Paris in July last on a
mission, on the subject of the marriage of the Queen of
Spain." And after quoting on this subject a passage
of my despatch of the 22d of November last, he adds:
" Notwithstanding this apparently lenitive contradiction,
her Majesty's spin rnment must still persist in the assertion,
in regard to this matter, which was contained in my former
despatch. Her Majesty's government consider themselves
to have good ground for asserting that the Marquis of Mira-
flute was sent to Paris in July for the above-mentioned
purpose; and though her Majesty's government do not pre-
tend to have a knowledge of all the communications which,
during the two months which he spent in Paris, may have
passed between him and those to whom he was sent, yet her
Majesty's government do happen to know, that on the
evening of the 19th July, a day or two after his arrival at
Paris, he had an audience at Neuilly, and that, at that
audience, he did, though ineffectually, endeavour to accom-
plish the purpose of his mission. I f the marquis had succeeded
in overcoming at Paris the objections there felt to the selection
of the Prince of Coburg he was to have gone on to London,
to solicit the co-operation of her Majesty's government."
I persist in thinking that Lord Palmerston hes been
wrongly informed, as regards the mission with which M. de
Mireflores was entrusted, he says, in the month of July let,
and as regards what was said or done on that occasion at
Paris, or even at Neuilly. In the 22d and the ten subse-
quent paragraphs, Lord Palmerton returns to and discusses
anew the question of the treaty of Utrecht. I find there again
the same idea, the same misconceptions, which I have already
combated, as regards the meaning and the consequences
of that treaty. I do not think it necessary to
recommence that discussion ; I shall confine myself to • few
short remarks on the assertions of Lord Palmerston, which
seem to me to throw so much of confusion and error on the
question. In his despatch of the 22nd of November, it was
against the marriage itself of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta that Lord Palmerston formally protested, in the
name of the treaty of Utrecht. To-day he acknowledges
that the treaty of 1. trecht does not prohibit such • marriage.
But he maintains that the issue proceeding front it are, in
virtue of thst treaty, excluded from the throne of Spain,
end he says that I have not contradicted that assertion. I for-
madly contradicted it. I acknowledged that, according to the
Harms of the treaty of Utrecht, and the renunciations of
1712, the descendants of the Duke of Orleans could
net, in case the liae of Philip V. became extinct, claim from
the head of their line any rights to the throne of Spain.
let I maintained that the descendants of Philip V. could
not lose their own eights, the rights of their own line to the
throne of Spain, on account of marriages with princes and
of lines which had renounced theirs. I established
rat%is
were the primitive sense and constant interpreta-
tion of the treaty of Utrecht. I quoted different facts in
support of that interpretation: especially Ferdinand VII.
and Isabella IL, King and Queen of Spain, as descendants
of Philip V., although, by. their mother and grandmother,
direct descendants of Louts XV. I asked Lord Palmerton
if he had ever dreamt of questioning the rights of Ferai-
sand VII. and Isabelle H. He gives no reply to the
question. The aim of the treaty of Utrecht was, I repeat it,
to prevent the union of the two crowns of France and Spain
on the same head. If, then, it one day came to pass, as Lord
Palmerston makes the supposition, that ;the rights of the
one and the other country found themselves united in the
person of a single prince, I do not hesitate to acknowledge
that he could not gather them both. But as long u the two
lines of the French and Spanish Bourbons exist, marriages
between them, =not make the previous abandoning of its
rights by one line to annul the rights of the other. A person
may renounce for himself and his descendant's rights which
be possesses, and which may be transmitted to them, but to
esmounce rights which he does not possess, and which cannot
be transmitted to them, is not admissible. Lord Palmerston
constantly confounds this distinction of the royal lines and
the rights which belong to each of them, and which remain
always distinct. From thence spring the erroneous con-
sequences, which he deduces from the treaty of Utrecht,
sad which would bring • most serious blow to
that treaty itself, and to the equilibrium of Europe
which rests upon it. "IC Guisot (says Lord Palmerton,
f 33 and following) in the concluding part of his despatch,
mya that he desire. to bring back the controversy within its
legitimate and constitutional limits ; that in my despatch of
the 31st of October I introduced a name which ought never
to have appeared in this discussion; that his surprise at this
was deep ; that his sense of duty commanded him to express
It strongly • and to remind me that the responsibility of the
polder of the king's government in this matter belongs
entirely to himself alone. It is impossible for me to allow
Si wear to pass
mumps without a reply.' And Lord Palmerton
=B,three from my despatch of sth
last, in which the name of the king is mentioned.
I did not, I must avow it, expect such a reply and such a
recrimination. I never thought that • royal name and per-
sonage could, or ought not, ever to be pronounced, is any man-
ner whatsoever, in • diplomatic correspondence. How could
I have entertained such an idea, in the presence of so many
facts which reject it, and when I had, without making any
observation on the subject, perceived the name of the King
in Lord Pelmerston's despatch of 22nd Sept., when I had at
various; times myself pronounced that name in my despatch
of sth October, as Lord Palmerston remarks, by quoting
three passages of it ? What I thought, mad what I still
persist in thinking, is, that the royal person ought
never to be named to be attacked; nor on the
occasion of acts which are attacked. The King can do no
wrong, such is in England, es in France, the fundamental
principle of a constitutional monarchy. It was this prin-
ciple which I pointed out to Lord Palmerston, who seemed
to have forgotten it. And, in fact, he did forget iton many
occasions. I shall only mention two. 1. In his despatch
of Oct. 31, after speaking of the engagement taken at Eu, in
September 1843, by the King of the French and by his
minister, Lord Palmerston says, that the memorandum of
Feb. 27, 1846, " declared, that in case of a certain eventu-
ality, the King of the French should consider himself se free
from the engagements he had taken relative to the mar-
riages of the Queen, and of the Infanta, and should think
himself at liberty to ask the band of either the
Queen or the Infanta for the Duke of Montpensier."
First of all, that quotation is not exact. The memorandum
of Feb. 27 dors not once speak of the King of the French,
does not even mention his name, It is in the name of the
government of the King that that memorandum it written ;
the French and English cabinet. are alone mentioned. It is
Lod Palmerston who brtils in the name of the Xing. And