The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

DOUGLAS JERROLD'S WEEKLY NEWS-
PAPER, ENLARGED, with Various New Features, to the
utmost Limit allowed by the Stamp Law, on the 23d January.
Price, as heretofore, Sixpence. Orders of all Newsmen, Town or
Country, of whom detailed prospectuses may be had.

DOUGLAS JERROLD'S WEEKLY NEWS-
PARER.
ENT—VIIGEMENT OF ONE- THIRD, ON THE MEETING OF
PARLI "sMENT.- In order to give ampler space for all the News
of the Week, including The Debates in Parliament—The Miscellane-
ous Occurrences—Law and Police Reports—Public Meetings —Foreign
Intelligence—Literature—Correspondence—as well as for Original
and various New Serial Articles, the Proprietor has determined to
enlarge the I'aper to the utmost limit allowed by the Stamp Law,
and to ADD ONE-THIRD, or TWENTY-FOUR COLUMNS,
making in the whole THIRTY-TWO PAGES, or NINETY-SIX
COLUMNS, thus rendering it equal to the Fullest and Largest News-
paper in the extent and variety of its News of the Week, and still
-etaining the large space heretofore devoted to Original Articles by
the Editor, and his Eminent Literary Colleagues. Price (as here-
tofore) SIXPENCE.
Order of all Newsmen, Town or Country, from whom detailed
Prospectuses can be had.

RAILWAY INTELLIGENCE.
LEEDS AND THIRSK.
On Wednesday a special meeting was held at Leeds, Mr.
John Gott in the chair, to consider and determine as to the
expediency of contracting to purchase the undertakings, rail-
ways, stations, and properties of the Stockton and Hartlepool
Railway Company, and the Clarence Railway Company, itr
any part thereof respectively, by the Leeds and Thirsk Com-
pany, upon the terms and conditions to be submitted to the
meeting; and to authorise the directors of the Leeds and
Thirsk Company to enter into contracts for such soles, or to
ratify any provisional agreements, if approved, that may
have been entered into with these companies respectively, or
either of them, for those purposes; and further to authorise
the directors of the Leeds and Thirsk Company to do all such
acts, adopt all such measures, and execute all such documents
as may be necessary or expedient to carry the same respec-
tively into full effect.
Mr. EDDISOW, solicitor to the company, read the terms of
the agreement which bad been entered into provisionally by
the directors of the Leeds and Thirsk Company with the di-
rectors of the Stockton and Hartlepool Railway Company
during the present month. By that agreement the Leeds and
Thirsk Company are to purchase the works of the Stockton and
Hartlepool Railway for the sum of 240,000/., of which sum
90,0001. is to be paid in cash within three months after ob-
taining the Act of Parliament to ratify the agreement ;
and the remaining 150,000/. by 3,000 shares in the Leeds and
Thirsk Company, which are to be considered as paid up, and
to take all the rights and interests whicti appertain to the
other shares in the company; and in pursuance of which the
shareholders in the Stockton and Hartlepool Company are to
be entitled to an allotment of 3,000 of the 351. preferential
stock, bearing six per cent. interest, created on the 30th of
November last, but are to pay the calls and interest
thereon in all respects the same as the other holders of those
shares. This purchase is to cover all the real and personal
property of the Stockton and Hartlepool Company, excepting
the engines, which are to be taken at a valuation, sub•
ject to an option which the Clarence Railway Company are
entitled to, under some former agreement with the
Stockton and Hartlepool Company. Mr. Eddison also
read a copy of the proposal of the Leeds and
Thirsk Company to purchase the works of the
Clarence Railway Company for the sum of 450,000 L, of which
214,0004 is to be paid in money within seven months of the
passing of the Act of Parliament, and the remaining 236,000/.
in shares of the Leeds and Thirsk Company principally pre-
ferential shares. The proposal had been accepted by the
committee of the Clarence Company, on the understanding
that the preferential shares are to continue such. The
Chairmaa read some observations illustrative of the advan-
tages of the proposed amalgamations, which had been writ-
ten by the chairman of the company. He concluded by
moving that the agreement for the purchase of the Stockton
and Hartlepool Railway works and other property, which
had been read be approved, and the corporate seal attached
thereto.
Mr. EDWARD BADIES seconded the motion, when it passed
unanimously.
A motion by the Chairman, sanctioning the proposal made
and accepted for the purchase of the Clarence Railway and
wd
ioernkt ,
and sub jseucbt e
et ot
asl us
oc ht o
alterationscopy atsh
the
hßa b
for
rfo
cuonndfi
remx
ipneg-
the same being laid before the shareholders of this company
for their sanction, was seconded by Mr. J. G. Payley, and
adopted unanimously.
PROGRESS OF THE ATMOSPHERIC.
On Thurs day a special trip (preparatory to the opening)
was taken upon the Croydon Atmospheric, from New-cross to
Forest-bill. Nearly the whole of this distance is upon an in-
cline of lin 100. Captain Codington was in attendance, and
was accompanied by Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Schuster (directors); and Mr. Peter Clark, the superin-
tendent of the line. The trip was interesting only so far as
it afforded something like an indication of the power of the
15-inch atmospheric pipe up a long and severe gradient.
The train, which consisted of four carriages, weighing about
sixteen tons, ran through from New-cross to Croydon without
stopping—that is the train, after the piston left the section of
the pipe laid down from the New-cross station to the engine-
house at Forest-hill, was carried by its own impetus up the
incline between such engine-house and the station at the
latter place, and down the short incline from the station to
the next length of pipe. The time occupied in running, from
a state of rest, from New-cross to the quarter-mile-post at
the Forest-hill station—viz., 234 miles, was 5 minutes and
21 seconds, showing a speed of about 30 miles per hour. The
breaks were put on rather heavily as the train approached
the Forest-hill station, and greatly retarded the speed of the
train. We believe this was done to avoid running at a high
velocity round the very short and sharp curve that carries
the train to the down side of the station. But for this the
234 miles would have been accomplished up the New Cross
incline in rather less than five minutes, or at a speed of 36
miles per hour. The highest velocity reached with this
light train of 16 tons was immediately previous to the ap-
proach to the viaduct over the Brighton Railway. The train
at this point attained a speed of nearly 60 miles per hour.
The return train consisted of seven carriages, weighing
nearly 30 tons. The highest speed reached by this train was
56 miles per hour.
A second trip, which was not accompanied by Captain
Codington, or any of the directors, was taken up the New
Cross incline with the same carriages. The train started at
1 hour 42 minutes 6 seconds, and reached Forest-hill at
1 hour 50 minutes 30 seconds, giving a speed of something
len than 20 wiles per hour.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.
(Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
We have received from Paris copies of the docu-
ments respecting the marriages of the Queen of Spain
with Don Francisco d'Assis and the Infanta with the
Duke de Montpensier, presented to the Chamber of De-
puties by M. Guizot on Tuesday last.
The following are translations of the most important
dispatches:—
LORD PALMERSTON TO LORD NORMANBY.
Foreign-office, Oct. 31, 1846.
My Lord,—Her Majesty's Government would willingly
have allowed the communications between7s the two
Governments on the Spanish marriages to close with M.
Guizot's dispatch of the sth inst., a copy of which was
transmitted to me by Count Jarnac on the Bth, if it were
not that there are some statements and some arguments
in that dispatch which it is impossible for her Majesty's
Government to leave entirely without a reply.
M. Guizot's dispatch, like that from me to your Ex•
eellencv, to which it was an answer, treats of two sub-
jects,—the marriage of the Queen of Spain, and the
marriage of the Infanta. With regard to the first I
have little to say, except so far as I may have to touch
upon it in treating of the second ; and except to express
the sincere and earnest wish of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that it may conduce to the happiness of the Queen
and to the welfare of the Spanish nation. Her Ma-
jesty's Government, indeed, in answer to repeated appli-
cations from the Government of Spain on the subject of
the Queen's marriage, had instructed her Majesty's Mi-
nister at Madrid to recommend a different arrangement,
and had invited the French Government to join in that
recommendation ; but the recommendation of her Ma
jesty's Government was not given to the Government of
Spain in the spirit of dictation, as M. Guizot's dispatch
would seem to imply ; nor did her Majesty's
Government either ask or expect that the Government
of France should exclusively recommend the candidate
whom her Majesty's Government thought the best. We
knew perfectly well, that if that candidate were not ac-
cepted by the Spanish Court, the French Government
would recommend another; and I distinctly stated to
Count Jarnac, in answer to a question which he put to
me, that her Majesty's Government, having given its
opinion, would, in the event of that opinion not pre-
vailing, take no part either for or against the other can-
didate whom the French Government would afterwards
propose. But what I adverted to in regard to this
matter, in my former d!spatch, is this, that while at the
latter end of August Count Jarnac was holding out to
me, and M. Guizot to your Excellency, the expectation
that M. Bresson would be instructed to co operate with
Mr. Bulwer in recommending the candidate whom the
British Government wished to paint out, provided that,
in the event of that candidate being rejected, Mr. Bulwer
would be instructed not to oppose M. Bresson in recom-
mending the other. M. Bresson was at that very time al-
ready deciding the matter at Madrid, against that first
candidate, in pursuance of instructions pr'viously sent to
him from Paris; and her Majesty's Government think
that the French Government might as well have made
those instructions known to them, instead of continuing
to discuss the conditions of a joint action which those in-
structions had put entirely out of the question. And in
regard to these matters, with respect to which the
French Government professed at the time a desire for a
full mutual understanding, and now seems to imply that
a similar disposition was not equally felt by her Ma-
jesty's Government, it is to be observed that her Ma-
jesty's Government twice communicated to the French
Government the instructions which had been sent to
Mr. Bulwer ; the first time in extenso, and the second
time in substance ; whereas no similar communication
was ever made to hor Majesty's Government of the ins
structions sent to M. Bresson. But not only was the
confidence thus shown by her Majesty's Government
towards the Government of France not reciprocated, but
it was turned to purposes at variance with the spirit in
which it was made ; and though M. Guizot declared that
my instruction, of the 19th of July, to Mr. Bulwer, of
which a copy was communicated in confidence to M.
Guirot, and was sent immediately by him to M. Bresson,
was not used by M. Bresson in any public or official
manner, yet he does not deny that it was used by M.
Bresson in a manner unauthorised by her Majesty's
Government, to whom, and to whom alone, it belonged
to determine what use should be made at Madrid of its
own instruction to her Majesty's Minister at that Court.
M. Guizot reverts to the earlier periods of these trans-
actions, and admits that, from the outset, the King of
the French spontaneously made known that he did not
pretend to obtain the hand of the Queen of Spain for
any of his sons, and that he wished the Queen of Spain
to choose her consort from among the descendants of
Philip V., a category which, as the French Government
pointed out at the time, specifically excluded all the
members of the Royal Family of France. But surely
there declarations had reference to a principle, and not
simply to a person. The objection of which his Ma-
jesty the King of the French by such declarations ad-
mitted the validity, was not that one of his sons should
be the husband of Isabella of Bourbon, but that one of his
sons should be the husband or the Queci, or Spain , and
the principle of that objection is therefore not confined
in its application to a marriage of one of his sons with the
reigning sovereign, but evidently applies also to a mar-
riage with the immediate heiress to the Crown. And
is this the doctrine of her Majesty's Government
yisnoaw,dfoocrtrthineefiras(ti
an n M
dispatchajesty antecedentt
o the
e certainpleiri inogd ;of
fotrh the
engagements,
nucfihrzoomt
which
alludes himself,
time,nitte advanced?
vi r t virtually
the French Government intimated, on the 27th of
February, 1846, that they should, in a specified contin-
gency, consider themselves freed and released. And
what were those engagements ? They were, first, the
engagement, originally and spontaneously made by his
Majesty the King of the French, that no son of his
should marry the Queen of Spain ; and, secondly, the
aloneblai
n'raarhha sit?s otherwise. An dis it
lotn
engagement. also spontaneously taken by his Majesty,
and by his Minister, in September, 1845, at that in
no case should the Duke of Montpensier marry the In-
fanta until the Queen of Spain should have been mar-
ried ; and until, by her having had children, the
prospect of a direct. succession to the Spanish Crown
should have been assured. Does not the second of these
engagements prove that the first was understood by
those who made it exactly in the sense which I have
given to it ? and that the objection of which the King
of the French acknowledged the force and justice, was,
not that one of his sons should marry a particular
Princess of the House of Bourbon, but that any of his
sons should be the consort of the Queen of Spain ? And
his Majesty, feeling; and admitting the force of that ob-
jection, proposed, of his own accord, that the marriage
which he wished to take place between his son and the
Infanta should be postponed until the birth of children
to the Queen should in some degree have divested that
marriage of the appearance of an attempt to take the
chance of attaining by indirect means in one way that
which had been relinquished directly in another.
This last-mentioned engagement at Eu was obviously
not sufficient to remove the objections of the British
Government to the proposed marriage of the Duke of
Montpensier to the Infanta. But that engagement, such
as it was, ought to have been kept; and if it had been
kept, time would have been allowed to the two Govern-
ments to discuss with deliberation the various questions
connected with the matter, and they might have endea-
voured to have arrived at some amicable arrangement
of their mutual views and interests with regard to it.
But the object of the French Government on this occa-
sion seems to have been so to precipitate the matter, as
to render all arrangement and mutual understanding im-
possible. This engagement, spontaneously made by the
French Government, has been broken; and upon what
plea? M. Guizot, in his dispatch, assigns two grounds
of excuse for its violation. The one, a circumstance
which happenec during the administration of her Ma-
jesty's late Government; the other, some circumstances
which are said to have happened after her Majesty's
present Government came into office.
M. Guisot alludes to a communication which was made
to her Majesty's late Government on the 27th of
February of the present year, the purport of which was
that the King of the French would hold himself free
from the engagement he had taken as to the marriage of
the Queen and of the Infanta, and would deem himself
at liberty to ask the hand either of the one or of the
other for the Duke of Montpensier, in a certain con-
tingency. That contingency M. Guizot stated, in his
dispatch, to have been defined to be, "if any combina-
tion should acquire consistency, which should make the
French Government fear that the Consort of the Queen
of Spain would be taken not from descendants
of amongthe
of Philip V."
This communication of the 27th of February, 1846,
upon which so much stress is laid as affording a justifi-
cation for the course which the French Government has
pursued, was verbal and unofficial. There is no record
of it in the Foreign-office. There is nothing to show that
it was ever acquiesced in by her Majesty's late Govern-
ment ; and the pretensions put forward, and the inten-
tions announced in it, are at variance with the principles
laid down, and with the opinions declared by her Ma-
jesty's late, as well as her Majesty's present, Adminis-
tration. I never heard of this memorandum till lately.
It was never even mentioned to me by Count Jarnac
until after the event had happened for which it is now
quoted as a justification. It is said to have been a timely
warning, the neglect of which justifies the double mar-
riage, and its existence was made known to me, for the
first time, by Count Jarnac, after the news of the double
marriage had been received. About the middle of Sep •
tember, Count Jarnac showed me an unsigned memo-
randum, which he said was the record of the communi.
cation in question ; but, although I remember that the
passage quoted by M Guizot was in that memorandum,
yet, the specific contingency stated therein as the one
which would release the French Government from its en-
gagements, was the case of "there being at any time
an imminent danger of a marriage either of the Queen
of Spain, or of the Infanta, with Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg, or with any other foreign Prince, not being a.
Bourbon, and not tieing a descendant of Phillip V. of
Spain ;" and it was in such a case that the memorandum
declared, that his Majesty the King of the French would
consider himself free to ask for the Duke of Montpen-
sier the hand either of the Queen or of the Infanta.
It is to be remarked, that the memorandum thus places
both the marriage of the Queen, and that of the heiress
presumptive to the throne, in the same politicalicategory ;
but if there was between those two marriages, in the
opinion of the French Government, this identity of poll-

Britain.
The second circumstance upon which M. Guizot's dis-
patch founds the defence of the French Government in
this matter, took place, as I have said, since her Ma-
jesty's present Administration came into office.
M. Guizot says, that soon after the above-mentioned
communication between Lord Aberdeen and the French
Government had taken place, Lord Aberdeen retired
from office ; and the information received by the French
Government no longer permitted them to doubt that the
efforts which had been undertaken for the marriage of
the Queen of Spain with the Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg were actively pursued. No doubt that informa-
tion was correct; and it was not difficult for the French
Government to acquire it. Those efforts were actively
pursued; but where? and to overcome what obstacles?
Why, if her Majesty's Government have not been much
misinformed, those efforts were making specially at Paris
by the Marquis of Miraflores, who had been sent by the
Spanish Court on a particular mission to the King of
the French, to endeavour to prevail upon his Majesty to
withdraw the opposition which he had made to a match
which was stated by the Marquis to be anxiously desired
by the Court of Madrid- But th.sPaa;3' si:,n, at least, the
very foundation of which was the assumption that the
Coburg marriage could not take place without the assent
of the King of the French, afforded no excuse for a de-
parture from the above-mentioned engagement.
" But then," M. Guizet says, " in the midst of this
state of things, and in the anxiety with which it inspired
the French Government," he r, ceived from
Bulwer
Count Jar-
nac my dispatch of the 19th of July to Mr. .
This dispatch, he says, enumerated, for the first time,
Prince Leopold as one of the three remain,ing candi-
dthaetefis first
tr
mentionedthe
aaanmd
etrhaat
it 0 Pn
.r i n ;as
indeed, as M. Guizot admits, was expressed in that dis-
patch in favour of Prince Leopold; but, on the other hand,
pnraemfeeresnv.caes
it is said that no objection was urged against him ;
and the passage in that dispatch whch stated that
" her Majesty's Government have only ti express their
sincere wish that the choice may fall upon the candidate
who may be the most likely to secure the happiness of
the Queen and to ensure the welfare of the Spanish na-
tion," was, in the opinion of the French Government,
such a plain though indirect recommendation of the
Prince of Coburg, that this dispatch was calculated, by
a mere act of hisser oiler, to bring about that marriage
without any direct support or active co-operation of the
British Government. And it is argued that this dispatch
justified the French Government in taking its own mea-
sures in regard to the two marriages.
Now, in the first place, it is to be observed that if the
knowledge of this dispatch of the 19th of July by the
Spanish Court was calculated to render the Coburg
marriage probable, that knowledge was afforded and them
by M. Bresson, who showed them the dispatch, not
by Mr. Bulwer, who was told in it that her Majesty's
thereupon. In as far, therefore, as a.
Government did not instruct him t knowledgeerily, step
.od nthairdis-
Spanish Court of the sentiments expres—
patch constituted, in the opinion of the
A their own
ment, a danger, that danger was createu
„tyfenee.
agent and cannot be pleadd in their own a
e Leopold had
With respect to the assertion, that Prinene
of
the
can.
never before been officilaly mentioned
asiso being so men-
didotes for the Queen's hand, find that h ,
_limp
which
rioted in this dispatch gave him some an"
1 observe that,
he did not possess before, I would
is only
yin Europe had
Frebnich Govern•
considering that almost every
long ago already so mentioned him; was founded
memorandum of the 27th of February, ,
as known to be a
can the assumption not only that h
ehlen one; consider-
candidate, but was likely to be the
Che Spanish Court in
ing also, that the known wishes of. t
of this year, been
regard to him had, later in the springing
intimation from
the subject of an official and threatement,
ne"':Olessr4idGe:ing that the
in consequence
M. Bresson to the Spanish Govern deemed
the Government of
to make an official communication
Lord Aberdeen made,
which communication
England, to d considering,
reply; an
on the 29th of June, an officialment when my dispatch of
moreover, that at the verywmaso
a Spanish envoy at Paris,
of which the Spanish Government
Lord
it necessary
July seas written there. t
ofPrince Leopold to the Queen of
olNflrrince
matter
adheredwi t with
strictlyreference
p rtt
coo s ttehhnyeet
Pee how the mere mention of the
Spain, it is not easy ?ns
a dispatch not intended to be
name of that Prince,
nit only for the personal information
gneegotapa e with the French Government
saebtoltutextPh
made public, and meant only for the personal information
of her Majesty'S Mildstc'
at Madrid, could in any wa
of her Majesty' T.
But it is said that the dispatch of
marriage question.
re
e sms layr marriage ion
expressed no objection to Prince Leo-
the 19th of July did not. Her Majesty's
it
tented with the metintena.nce of the
alter the positions
Government have in this
judicious course pursued h'r r d
by t et p e ecessors. They have
hat no foreign Government had any
been of opinion, t
Prince as a candidate for ,
the hand
right to object to anyd
pold. Undoubtedly
endent country, unless
of the Queen of an in sa for those
political reasons connec
were stated S
balance of power, which
_, n my dispatch of
B lwer• and as those
the 19th of July to Mr. I . ,
not apply to Prince
• Leopold of Saxe Coburg, neither
the present
the late Government nor
s a c nel. saw any ground for
objecting to Prince Leopoldt Buat thaat didate for the hand
of the Queen of Spain; dispatch distinctly
stated that her Majesty s present Government were not
prepared to give any active support to t
any of the candi-
dates therein mentioned. Moreover, i refered Mr. Bul-
wer to the instructions which he had received on the
marriage question from my predecessor in office, and
among those instructions was the communication to him
of a copy of the note addressed on the 29th of June,
1846, by Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Sotomayor, in
which Lord Aberdeen stated that 4, when
an alliance of
the Queen of S pain with Count Trappani had manifestly
become odious to the Spanish nation, the British Go-
vernment had 'ventured, although without any English
candidate or English
preference,
to point out the Infant
D•in Enrique as the Prince who appeared to them to be
the most eligible, because the most likely to prove ac-
ceptable to the people of Spain. And yet the French
Government endeavour to represent that a dispatch
which contained the passage first above quoted, and
which referred Mr. Bulwer to this last-mentioned expo-
sition of the sentiments of the late British Government,
as having been adopted by the present Government,
was to be considered as an indirect encouragement of an
alliance of the Queen of Spain with Prince
Leopold of
Saxe Coburg. M. Guizot admits that good faith re-
quires, that what is not attempted directly should not
be aimed at indirectly; and her Majesty's Government
cannot refrain from expressing some surprise at the
groundless insinuation contained in the passage on
which I have been remarking, seeing that M..Ouizot,
in the paragraph immediately following,
directly admits

that her Majesty's Government had no intention to
put forward or to recommend Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg.
That admission is an acknowledgment of the exact
truth. The British Government has at no time put for-
ward or recommended that Prince as a candidate for the
hand of the Queen of Spain, and has at no time taken
any step to promote his alliance with that Sovereign. If
that Prince, being the object of the choice of the Court
of Madrid, had also been wished for by the great majo-
rity of the people of Spain, and if his union with the
Queen would have created for Spain no embarrassment
in her foreign relations, the British Government would
cheerfully have taken any steps which it might have been
competent to take in order to facilitate such an arrange-
ment. But being led to doubt, by what had passed with
regard to Count Trappani, whether any foreign Prince
would be acceptable to the Spanish nation, and seeing
that the objections expressed by the King of the French
to Prince Leopold, however unreasonable, unjust, and
in public law untenable they might be, might never-
theless, in the eventof that Prince becoming the consort
of the Queen, injuriously affect the relations of Spain
with France, the British Government, from the moment
when the Trappani match was abandoned, stedfastly and
constantly maintained the opinion, that it was desirable
for the interests of Spain that the Queen's choice should
fall upon a Spanish Prince.
It is true that when her Majesty's present Ministers
came into office great efforts were made by the Spanish
Court to obtain from them some expression of opinion
in favour of Prince Leopold; and not only were those
efforts made at Madrid, but the Duke of Sotomayor came
over from France, where he was residing on leave of
absence, to urge personally the same request. The
British Government dealt with these applications, as
considering them made in good earnest, and as under-
standing them to express the real wishes of the Spanish
Court, and as made with no other object in view than
that which was professed. My dispatch of the 22d of
August to Mr. Bulwer conveyed an answer to the
Spanish Court; and on the 15th of August I gave an
answer to the Duke of Sotomayor, by stating to him
that which I had before more than once said to Count
Jarnac, namely, that the British Government had no
candidate of its own; that considering all the difficulties
connected with the selection of Prince Leopold, that
selection did not seem to us to be the best; that it would
be most advisable, on the whole, that a Spanish Prince
should become the Consort of the Queen, and that
amongst Spanish Princes Don Enrique seemed to us to
be the fittest.
These answers, no doubt, disappointed the expecta-
tions with which these overtures had been pressed upon
her Majesty's Government; but what was there in all
this which could justify the French Government in de-
parting from its voluntary engagements at Eu?—even
admitting, for the sake of argument, that her Majesty's
present Government were to be held bound by the me-
morandum of the 27th of February, which tke French
Government had never either mentioned or communi-
cated to them.
But M. Guizot's dispatch goes on to say, that " The
French Government was unable to deceive itself as to
the state of things; and saw that there was on the part
of the Spanish Court so strong a desire for the Coburg
alliance, that if the British Government should make no
active opposition to it, and should remain only passive
in the matter, that marriage would certainly be con-
cluded; and that, consequently, the French Government
resorted at Madrid to the most direct and most legiti-
mate means, and appealed to the free choice and inde-
pendent will of the Queen and of her Government, to
bring about a different arrangement.
"By the side of a combination which was being
pursued evidently in opposition to the policy of the
French Government, that Government," says M.
Guizot, " offered a different combination; and this
latter one was accepted by the Queen and her Go-
vernment."
The contradiction between the opposite statements
contained in these passages is too obvious to require td
be pointed out. If the Spanish Court had so strong a
desire for the Coburg marriage, that nothing but the
active and decided opposition of the British Government
could have prevented that marriage, how did it happen
that in the absence, as M. Guizot alleges, of any such
opposition, the mere and simple offer of a different ar-
rangement by the French Government sufficed to pro-
cure the immediate adoption of that different arrange
ment? And if, as M. Guizot states, the Spanish Court
acted in this matter with the most entire freedom,
what was the reason of so sudden a transition from what
is represented to have been an almost uncontrollable de-
termination for one arrangement, to a spontaneous and
equally decided adoption of another one? M. Guizot
says that this result was brought about by the most
urgent motives ; what those motives were he does not
explain. May it be inferred that one at least among
those urgent motives was furnished by the urgency with
which M. Bresson pressed the arrangement which he
thus proposed to the Spanish Court? And might not
another of these urgent motives have been afforded by
the conviction, then already obtained by the Spanish
Court, that the British Government did not recommend
the Prince of Coburg, but thought that under all the cir-
cumstances of the case, a Spanish Prince would be fittest
consort for the Queen.
If that conviction was felt at Madrid—and her Ma-
jesty's Government have good ground for asserting that
it was there felt—what becomes of the excuse put for-
ward for the precipitate and secret settlement of the
marriage of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta,
upon the plea that the engagements of En had been
rendered void by the happening of the case of imminent
danger specified in the uncommunicated, and, at least by
her Majesty's present Government, unacquiesced-in
memorandum, of the 27th of February, 1846?
The imminent danger specified in that memorandum was
the likelihood that either the Queen or the Infanta should
be about immediately to marry a foreign Prince, not
being a descendant of Philip V. Bat, if that likelihood
had ever existed, it had at all events ceased to exist
when M. Bresson demanded the hand of the Infanta for
the Duke of Montpensier. Not only had it then ceased
to exist, but with respect to the Queen, whose marriage
was at that time the immediate and only subject of dis-
cussion,it had been succeeded by an impossibility ;
because, whenM. Bresson demanded the hand of the
Infanta for the Duke of Montpensier, the marriage of
the Queen to the Infante Don Francisco had actually
bean resolved upon and settled. Therefore, the memo-
randum of the 27th of February, 1846, cannot afford the
slightest ground on" which to tbuild a justification for
breaking the engagement of Eu.
M. Guizet denies that the treaty and the renunciations
of Utrecht afford to the British Government any ground
of right for protesting against the marriage of the Duke
of Montpensier, and against its possible consequences.
Now, the British Government have protested against
that marriage, as at variance with the spirit of the
Treaty of Utrecht, and against certain contingent con-
sequences of that marriage, as a violation of the letter of
that treaty ; and her Majesty's Government are of
opinion that their protest rests upon good and sufficient
grounds.
objects
ss andw
of
the M. Guizot says that the Treaty of Utrecht had a
io nowhere
p ut f
o r
h a
contracting
r
double object: the first to secure the Crown of Spain to '
o thebutpossibilityn peace o t
o a
second
these
ee union
resultstthe
C means undoubtedly the
effect,
end.
Philip V. and his descendants • the second to prevent
the
Spain on one and the same head.
stetreaty;a
Now
isf
and first
t h f
e nd
betweenof
i,.
a the
sa
and
ne t an
oneow Crowns
parties, o
the
f
Francebtij
e The main and real object of the treaty, besides thec re-
that for which the preceding war had been undertaken;
and it is truly set \forth in the second article of the
treaty between Great Britain and Spain, which recites
that, " La guerre peon vient determiner heureusement
par cette paix a ett entreprise au commencement, et
continu4e si longtemps avec taut d'animosit4 et des de-
penses immonses, aussi bien qu'avec une effusion do sang
inexprimable, I cause du danger imminent dont la
libert6 et la suret6 de touts l'Europe, a 44 menacee
par I'union trop &mite des royaumes d'Espagne et de
France."
It was a too close and intimate union between the
kingdoms of France and of Spain which constituted
that danger to the balance of power in Europe which it
was the real object of the War of Succession, and cf the
transactions of Utrecht, for ever afterwards to avert;
and the means by which that too close and intimate
union was to be prevented, were the perpettial separa-
tion of the two Crowns, and the perpetual exclusion of
any Prince of the Royal Family of one of the two eoun-
tries, or of any of the descendants of such Prince, from
succeeding to the throne of the other.
Her Majesty's Government, therefore, contend that
the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta
is at variance with the main object of the treaty ; and
that the letter, and positive stipulations, of the treaty,
would prevent any of the descendants of that Prince
from succeeding to the throne of Spain, " whatever
might be the manner in which the succession might de-
volve upon their line."
The French Government do not pretend to deny the
validity of the renunciations of Utrecht. Those renun-
ciations were clear, positive, explicit, and comprehensive.
They were incorporated in the treaty, and were made
part of the law both of France and of Spain ; and the
King of France engaged by the stipulation' of the treaty
" Solennellement et par parole de Roi" that neither he
nor his heirs and successors " ne feront jamaisriedn,
em-
pecher les renonciations,, ni
ne perme
ttront quc jamais rien fait, capable
d'avoir leur plein en enlist
they would take sin-
effet." But that, on the contrary,d
d exert themselves, " afin que rie.n ne onne
cere care, an bite ne puisse
fondement du salut pu ,
atteinte a ce
l'ibranler."
Her Majesty's Government are surprised that in the
d f uch stipulations and
face of such renunciations an o s
h uld endeavour
ts the French Government s o
engagemen , h not directly asserted,
to represent, as implied, thong
in M. Guizot's dispatch, that the descendants of the
Duke of Montpensier could relieve themselves from the
hich attaches to them
positive and perpetual exclusion
wb
the plea that they
from the transactions of Utrecht,
f ?ra Luisa Fernanda.
would inherit rights from
met In an
itted to them by the
lii s manifest that no clai ansm
et aside the positive
Infanta could counterbalance.lol r
inherit from the Duke of
disqualification which they .sill
common than that the
Montpensier. Nothing
edisb chldren from one of heir
disqualifihould invalidate theiq
ualification whicht they
parents s
inherit froM the other..
value in ts implied
But if there were an hi
andif the marriage ofassertion the
of the French Government,

Duke of Montpensier with the Infanta would really free
his descendants from the disabling effects of the renun-
ciations of Utrecht, how could the conclusion of that
marriage be reconciled with the above quoted engage-
ment of the Crown of France solemnly taken, "et par
parole de Roy," never to do nor to permit to be done,
anything which could be capable of preventing those
renunciations from having their full and entire effect?
The French Governinei.t, therefore, must either
admit that the descendants of the Duke of Montpensier
are excluded by virtue of the renunciations in the Treaty
of Utrecht. or they must acknowledge that they have
violated the engagements contained in that` treaty:
M. Guizot, however, quotes instances of marriage of
two Princes of Spain with Princesses of France, and of
a Prince of France with a Princess of Spain; and he says
that the last instance is remarkable, because it was the
heir to the Crown of Franco who married one of the
heiresses of the Crown of Spain.
To these instances her Majesty's Government would
reply, that even if they were cases in which the stipula-
tions of Utrecht had been overlooked, the fact of their
having been so overlooked by statesmen in the last cen-
tury would be no reason why they should not be appealed
to and observed by statesmen in the present century, if
those stipulations are in themselves clear, positive, and
indisputable.
Doubtful stipulations may receive an interpretation
from precedents ; but a treaty that is plain and precise
can only be invalidated by an act as formal as itself.
A law is not abrogated for one man, because another
man has abstained from appealing to its enactments ;
and a treaty is not annulled for one generation, because
another generation, under circumstances essentially
different, may have allowed its stipulations to lie
dormant.
But the cases quoted by M. Guizot are very different
from that of the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier.
In all these cases the Salic law was in force both in
France and in Spain, and the Princesses in question,
instead of being immediate heiresses to the crown of the
country to the Royal Family of which they respectively
belonged, were, in the two first instances, by the law of
France altogether excluded ; and in the third instance,
by the law of Spain, excluded until all the male heirs
should be extinct. It is obvious that while the Salic law
was in force in both countries, the strict enforcement of
the stipulations of Utrecht in regard to women might
well be considered as less important than it has now be-
come, since the change which has of late years been
made in the law of succession in Spain. But with respect
to the cases quoted, it may be observed as to the first,
that, after that marriage, the treaty between Spain and
Austria in 1729, still further confirmed and recorded the
exclusion of all French Princes and their descendants
from the throne of Spain ; and with respect to the third,
that so descendants of that-marriage have succeeded, or
have claimed a right to succeed, to the Spanish Crown.
M. Guizot, indeed, says that the stipulations of
Utrecht will suffice for the future, as they have done for
the past, for the interests of peace and for the balance of
power in Europe. If her Majesty's Government are to
understand by that sentence, that, whereas no French
Prince or his descendant has since the Treaty of Utrecht
claimed to succeed to the throne. of Spain, no French
Prince or his descendant will ever claim so to succeed in
future, her Majesty's Government would admit that the
question at issue between the two Governments was
divested of much of its practical importance.
Her Majesty's Government, however, cannot admit
that the experience of the past, ea Ai`sierted by M. Gui-
zot, has demonstrated that foreign influence has no
power of swaying the international pOlicy of Spain. On
the contrary, the history of the last century affords
many examples to show how, in conseq_uence of that in-
timate connexion which, notwithstaqifiVhe Treaty of
Utrecht, continued to subsist betiWVie Crowns of
France and Spain, Spain followed France into war, and
made peace only when France did so too. • •
It is true, indeed, as M. Guizot reminds her Majesty's
Government, that in the present century Spain made a
great and successful effort to vindicate her national in-
dependence ; and it may be remarked that the unani-
mity of feeling which then crowned her exertions with
success, was much strengthened by the deep impression
produced throughout Spain by the secrecy and surprise
with which those proceedings were conducted which
were intended to lead to the establishment of a French
Prince on the Spanish throne.
The British Government has not, as M. Guizot seems
to suppose, forgotten those events, nor does it fail to
render justice to the patriotism then displayed by the
Spanish nation ; and her Majesty's Government are
convinced that on any analogous occasion the same spirit
would animate the whole Spanish people.
But her Majesty's Government would deeply lament
that any such occasion should arise again to let loose on
the Peninsula a tempest of angry passions, and again to
pour forth on the soil of Spain a deluge of human blood.
The calamities of such a conflict, however great they
may be, are not too dear a price for a people to pay for
the maintenance of their national independence ; and
though other States may be involved in the evil con-
nected with such a struggle, sound policy may lead em
to choose immediate exertions and sacrifices, rather than
encounter the future dangers which apathy and inacti
vity would render too certain. But great would be the
responsibility which would weigh upon those who should
wantonly have been the cause of such evils; and if those
evils, besides being unnecessarily produced, bad their
origin in breaches of treaties and of engagements, that
responsibility would, indeed, be heavy and overwhelming-.
I have to instruct you to read this dispatch to M.
Guizot, and to send him officially a copy of it.—l am, &c.,
(Signed) PALMERSTON.

M. GUIZOT TO COUNT JARNAC.
Paris, Nov. 22, 1846.
Monsieur le Comte,—l send you herewith a copy of
the dispatch from Lord Palmerston, dated the 31st of
October last, which Lord Normanby communicated to
me on the 4th of the prosent month. Having answered
already most of the allegations repeated in this docu-
ment, I shall confine mysef to correcting the more seri-
ous of the errors which it contains, and to reiterating,
conformably with the truth, the more important of the
facts to which it relates. The only effect of lengthened
controversy is to throw obscurity on the controverted
matter, and to raise animosity between the parties to the
dispute. Whilst it asserts the rights and the interests of
France, the King's Government is earnestly de:irons of
maintaining the most friendly relations with the Govern-
ment of her Britannic Majesty, and to this sentiment I
shall remain faithful.
Lord Palmerston endeavours to make out that the

King's Government has not kept the engageNomvfeinettsuseynrelee-ans,
re-
lating to the Spanish marriages which it entered into
into in September, 1245, at the Palace of Eu ; and
that it has broken the Treaty of Utrecht, with the ob-
ligations which that treaty imposes upon it. Such are
the terms of his dispatch ; and the more unmeasured
these terms are, tho more anxious I am to reproduce
them without attenuation, that I may give them an unre-
served answer.
Lord Palmerston declared, in his dispatch of the 22d
of September last, that he had not found in the Foreign-
office any convention or arrangement between the French
and English Governments relating to the Spanish mar-
riages. lle insists, in his dispatch of the 31st of October
last, on the engagements relating to the same matter,
which, as he says, were entered into by the King's Go-
vernment at the Palace of Eu, affirming, at the same
time, that there is not in the Foreign-office any trace of
the memorandum written by me on the 27th of February
last, and communicated to Lord Aberdeen on the 4th of
March following.
I might ask, in my turn, whether there exists in the
Foreign-office any trace of? the engagements contracted
at the Palace of Eu? I might, moreover, urge (with
some surprise at the inconsistency) that, while he affects
a perfect knowledge of engagements not attested by the
faintest official evidence, he disputes facts and documents
which it would not be convenient to admit, on the
ground that there is no official trace of their existence.
This (might it not be said ?) is a striking contradiction,
and evinces an extreme partiality for his own view of
the question.
I shall, however, do nothing of the sort. I shall not
dispute the engagements contracted at Eu, because no
record of them has been found by Lord Palmerston in
the Foreign-office. Where Governments are connected
by mutual confidence and respect, public business is not
unfrequently transacted without official documents.
There are even circumstance in which this course is
dictated to them by propriety, and in which, therefore,
they are bouad to pursue it. Such was the case in re-
spect to the Spanish marriages. As the question related
substantially to the domestic concerns of Spain, it in-
volved considerations which regarded her independence
and dignity. Lord Aberdeen and myself (who were de-
sirous of acting in concert throughout the affair) did not
think it fitting to make the question the subject of an
official correspondence. Out of respect towards Spain,
and considering our own position relatively to her, we
thought that we should act with more propriety by con-
fining our correspondence to those less formal com-
munications which were rendered natural and easy by
our mutual confidence.
It is for this reason that Lord Palmerston has not
found in the Foreign-office any trace of the
fnehgeo,,ti2ad-
ments contracted at Eu, with the declarations in the
hiltheir
anxious
emira ktitrnouge acknowledge
thisenda eskernioowu
s.
memorandum of the 27th of February, are not, on that
account, the less real or serious; and, so far am I from
otifonsseoprteamr arrangements ebmee n ts
stylesw h isch,bainrgahiins. dispatch
Butth.
co
engage-
ments
at
with r Et
wau, eo
of Spain should
ahlemr a
consort
Palmerston
rt forgets,am o n go
sr omitst the
descendants
eo
sscaeyn,d thatanis tohfe en-
gagementsse
Philip
eo an sat. e
lodgment, to re-state them correctly and completely.
Now,ilmve adverted
referringerted to
them,to the
we engagementshavecoupl
coupled
contracted t e:,
tdo I t assertya, m
ithusawnedreacmcourtduianlgantod ctohnedimti
disputinge theirhlartai
st,xe
ris.
however,
existence, them,
andtmh ayt
choose her
that the English
trcvehos.oore;drvations : first, that the Queen
Government, in concert
should help us to secure the accomplishment of that
object.
1 We could not, indeed (without the most culpable im-
prudence), have restricted our lib
matter of such serious importance, ueurlteyssowfe ahcatdi on in a
limited
our engagements by conditions demanded from us by the
interests and dignity of France.
I have openly, and on every
line of policy in respect
occasion, announced our
to the matter in question. I have
frequently conversed on the subject with the English