The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

7;;"----""'''""---H:' • .
7f./.2:7*.f."'"e!:0; Zll7'. If-J1::.3 ..., ~ • .
.. a. " (c....,
,
... ,
, ~.„..,..,.
~.,.„,.,,,..06
~„,......_,.
-,.„-*4 ---
ii r%..4,
....., ..
„..„ " _.- 47: ....: - .:, ,
~
1",
V-;: :. . .
j ..
[."
~.,,,,,„, ~
~.• , _ ~,,,t,„
..,.....„, arx • 3/. .. '.' ,
.1.,
---'-72,-/(;:cf7.71:14,', 4:,411116H7'. -flia;61‘,If'1;illArrill:::•(-1=1:74ifill.:11" :::1ii&_7:,441111- `,:.:te-',''.:/...177; 1-
11r;z1LI
&;
1.
L'
:;1:
:1141
LIIIIIIIIIIII
-79-I.* :t.
Ns - +
'll5-9r Lt. 1E - /i 1;,.....: 1fin0,,,,!•0. 1
.., ,--t,.,--,- ''' •
:a: f1:';:t11/41:7d„/"''4.,
•-„,_.N.Lf.:._:. •.-- -
Z,, * , ---- •

No. 16,950. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING SU Ny JANUARY 15, 1847.

LEEDS AND THIRSK RAILWAY.
LEEDS ♦ND HARTLEPOOL EXTENSION.
CONTRACTS FOR RAILS, CHAIRS, SLEEPERS, AND SPIKES.
The Directors of this Company win meet at the Company's Offices,
No. 5, South Parade, Leeds, on Thursday the Eleventh of February
next, to receive and open TENDERS for the supply of the following
Articles, viz.:-
5,000 TONS of MALLEABLE IRON RAILS.
1,800 TONS CAST IRON RAILWAY CHAIRS.
120 TONS RAILWAY SPIKES.
77,000 3IEMEL FIR and LARCH SLEEPERS.
Persons desirous of Tendering for the supply of the above, may ob-
tain further particulars on application at the Company's Offices on
and after the Twenty-first of January next.
Sealed Tenders, addressed to the Secretary, will be received until
Noon of the Day of Letting.
The Directors do not bind themselves to accept of the lowest
Tender.

tical character, why did that Government, while it felt
the propriety of endeavouring to come to an understand-
ing with her Majesty's Government about the one mar-
riage, consider itself free to make a secret and surrepti-
tious settlement of the other ?
The memorandum further contained assurances that
each of the two Princess-es ought to marry a desendant
of Philip V., and that consequently neither of them
should marry the Duke of Montpensier, except in the
case of imminent danger of one or other of them being
married out of the House of Bourbon.
What, then, were the circumstances which are men-
tioned as having made such an event imminent ?
The first circumstance happened, as I have observed,
during the time of the late Government. M. Guizot says
" that in May of the present year the French Govern-
ment had addressed to the reigning. Duke of Saxe
Coburg, then on a visit to the Court of Lisbon, a message
for the purpose of negotiating the marriage of Prince
Leopold of Saxe Coburg with the Queen Isabella ; and
that the French Government had learned at the same
time, and with the same certainty, that this message had
been previously communicated to Mr. Bulwer, the Bri-
tish Minister at Madrid, and had received his approval ;
that the French Government immediately expressed, both
at London and at Madrid, its surprise and uneasiness, and
that it received from Lord Aberdeen assurances which
demonstrated his entire good faith."
Now what is the impression which this statement is
calculated to produce as to the course of the transaction
to which it relates? Why, evidently, that the French
Government having, from its own sources of information,
obtained a knowledge that a letter had been written by
the Spanish Court to the Duke of Saxe Cobourg, and
that it had been seen by Mr. Bulwer before it was sent
off, expressed to Lord- Aberdeen its surprise and uneasi-
ness, and received from Lord Aberdeen, in reply, satis-
factory assurances. But the real transaction was ex-
actly the reverse of this, as regards the communication
between the two Governments.
The first knowledge which the French Government
received of the letter having been written by Queen
Christina was from Lord Aberdeen himself. The first
knowledge which they had that this letter had been seen
by Mr. Bulwer was equally given to them by Lord Aber-
deen. The surplise which they expressed was surprise
at what they learned from Lord Aberdeen; and the first
expression of that surprise is said to have been accom-
panied not so much by uneasiness as by alleged incre-
dulity. The French Government seemed unwilling to
believe that such a letter could have been written, and
that they should have received the first intimation of it
from any other person than their own Minister at Ma-
drid. M. Guizot says that Lord Aberdeen, in reply to
the communication of the French Government, gave as-
surances which demonstrated his good faith. M. Guizot
ought rather to have said that Lord Aberdeen demon-
strated his good faith by spontaneously communicating to
Count St. Aulaire a fact of which the French Govern-
ment represented themselves as uninformed. Lord Aber-
deen thought himself bound to make known to the French
Government that such a letter had been written, because
he found that the letter had been shown to the British
Minister at Madrid before it was sent off ; and as Lord
Aberdeen had said to the French Government that her
Majesty's Government meant to take no active part in
favour of the Prince of Coburg, he thought it right to
inform them of what had passed, lest the bare knowledge
which her Majesty's Minister at Madrid had acquired of
this step might expose her Majesty's Government to the
suspicion of having changed their policy in this respect,
secretly, and without previously informing the French
Government that they intended to do so. It must be
confessed that, as regards Lord Aberdeen, it may be
said of the statement made of this transaction in M.
Guizot's dispatch, that " there is in it, perhaps, some
want of memory, or of justice."
At all events, this example of' scrupulous good faith
on the part of Lord Aberdeen cannot be quoted as con-
stituting a reason why the French Government should
be released from the engagements which it had spon-
taneously taken towards the Government of Great
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 that mission, 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. Guizot says, " in the midst of this
state of things, and in the anxiety with which it inspired
the French Government," he received from Count Jar-
nac my dispatch of the 19th of July to Mr. Bulwer.
This dispatch, he says, enumerated, for the first time,
Prince Leopold as one of the three remaining candi-
dates for the Queen's band, and that Prince's name was
the first mentioned in the enumeration. No preference
indeed, as M. Guizot admits, was expressed in that dis-
patch in favour of Prince Leopold; but, on the other hand,
it is said that no objection was urged against him ;
and the passage in that dispatch which stated that
" her Majesty's Government have only to 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 laisser alley, 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 to them
t
by M. Bresson, who showed them the not'
by and
by Mr. Bulwer, who was told in it that her Majesty's
Government (lid not instruct him to take
anal; step
o
thereupon. In as far, therefore, as a knowledge
Spanish Court of the sentiments expressed in
dis-
patch constituted, in the opinion of the French Govern•
t hat
ment, a danger, that danger was- created
by their own
agent. and cannot be pleaded in their own defence.
With respect to the assertion, that Prince Leopold had.
never before been officilaly- mentioned as one of the can-
didotes for the Queen's hand, and that hisd being so men-
tioned in this dispatch gave him some aobserve wthath ,
ge hic
he did not possess before, I would onlyvn
Europe had
considering that almost every newspaper in
long ago already so mentioned him;
considering that the
memorandum of the 27th of February, 1846, was founded
on the assumption not only that he was known to be a
one Coourt in
nsider-
s .he Sp
anish C
candidate, but was likely to be the chosen ,
ing also, that the known wishes of the
of _this year, been
regard to him had, later in the spring
the subject of an official and threatening in consequence intimation from
M. Bresson to the Spanish Government,
deemed it necessary
of which the Spanish Government t o
the Government of
to make an official communication
England, to which communication Lord Aberdeen made,
momenta hen my dispatch of
on the 29th of June, an official reply; and considering,
moreover, that at the very
w a Spish envoy at, Paris,
July was written
negotiatethere was
with the French Government
sent expressly to Psereince Leopold to the Queen of
about the marriage of Prince
how the mere mention of the
Spain, it is not easy
a dispatch not intended to be
name of that Prince, in
made public, and meant only for the personal information
of her Majesty's enMinisterato
at Madrid, could in any way
alter the position of Prince Leopold with reference to the
marriage question.
But it is said that the flivatch of
the 19th of July expressed no objection to Prince Leo-
M • ,s present
ajesty
pold. Undoubtedly it did not. Her
..
Government have in this
h matter adhered strictly to the
judiciouscoursepnrsued y their
predecessors.- They haven t had
been of opinion, that no fores a candidateignGever
Government had any
for h
right to object
to any Prince as
independent country, unless for those
political the Queen of an
political reasons connected with the maintenance of the
balance of power, which were stated in my dispatch of
and as those the 19th of July to Mr. Bulwer;f
Saxe reasons did
not apply to Prince Leopold Coburg, neither
the late Government nor the present saw any ground for
objecting to Prince Leopold as a candidate for the hand
B t that dis
of the Queen of Spain. Patch distinctly
resent Uovern
stated that her Majesty's p ment were not
prepared to give any
can (-
dates therein mentioned. Moreover, it refered Mr. Bul-
wer to the instructions which lie 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,
which by Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of so,
tomayor, in
which Lord Aberdeen stated that " when an alliance of
the Queen of Spain 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
Don 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 Governmet,
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
no 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.Brauizot,
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 ns a candidate for the
band 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 fur 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, stedfailly 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, Its
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 those 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 the 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 to
be pointed out. If the Spanish Court had so strong a
desire for the Coburg marriage, that nothing but the
active anti 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
went? 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.
cunistances of the case, a Spanish Prince would be fittest
consort for the Queen.
If that conviction was felt at Madrid—aid 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 Eu had been
rendered void by the happening of the case of imminent
d h earn g e spec
ified
pi nr
etsheen
tu n com
Government,
m uni cated , and,
unacqaut least
-in
ny
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. But, 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, when M. Bresson demanded the hand of the
Infanta for the Duke of Montpensier, the marriage of
the Queen to the Infante Don Francisco had actually
been resolved upon and settled. Therefore, the memo-
randum of the 27th of February, 1846, cannot afford the
slightest ground on which to [build a justification for
breaking the engagement of Eu.
M. Guizot denies that the treaty and the renunciations I
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.
Guizot says that the Treaty of Utrecht had a
double object: the first to secure the Crown of Spain to
Philip V. and his descendants
e
eTSffpheaecntmi, obaniunto
and
naenrwed
ahtlehreoebspjaeumet
object of
eohrfet head.
Now • the second to prevent
is
the possibility of a union of the Crowns of France and
thest
that
oarta treaty;ftoior nwhich
hf
ittepnhed
at
ehee thebi s3retecwcoe dai
preceding
thea
ws
a
Now the first of these results was undoubtedly the
treaty, one
meansacrohn
tard contracting
notteiaennngdtpina
drtei
rea
tsna, end.
t besideshe o objects
jteheetsr re-
storation
kwenas;
and it is truly set ;forth in the second article of the
treaty between Great Britain and Spain, which recites
that, " La guerre qu'on vient determiner heureusement
par Bette paix a ete entreprise au commencement, et
continues si longtemps avec tant d'animosit6 et des de-
penses immenses, aussi Bien qu'avec une effusion de sang
inexprimable, acause du danger imminent dont la
liberte 'et la slime de toute l'Europe, a é'e menacea
par l'upion trop etroite des royaumes d'Espagne et de
France."

By order,
No. 5, South Parade, Leeds.

S. SMILES, Secretary.

ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION.
PROFESSOR SCHfENBEIN'S GUN COTTON, and other
Explosive Compounds, with brilliant Experiments, LECTURED on
y Dr. RYAN, daily at Half-past Three o'clock; and ou the Evenings
of Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The principle of the various ELECTRO-MAGNETIC TELE.
GRAPHS explained daily by Professor BACHHOFFNER, including
the Patent of Messrs. Cook and Wheatstone, in use on the railways, and
the more recent Patent of Messrs. Nott and Gamble ; the various
Models explained. Magnified Specimens of DISEASED POTATOES,
exhibited by the OXYHYDROGEN MICROSCOPE, with the DE-
S TRUCTIVE INSECT, supposed by A. Smee, Esq., F.R.S., to be
the cause of the disease. A beautlini Series of NEW DISSOLVING
VIEWS. The DIVING-BELL and DIVER, with Experiments.
The PHYSIOSCOPE, new CHROMATROPE, &c.. &c.

Achilisslon Is. Schools, half-price.

1 RAVESEND STAR and BLACKWALL
k Jr PACKETS.
Boat and Rail included in One Payment, avoiding the danger
and delay of the Pool.
Prom the Brunswick Wharf, Blackwall, at 9%, 10%, 1,8, 4, and
5. Sundays, at 9%, 11, 1%, 4, and 5. The Trains starting one quar-
ter of an hour before each of these times.
New Terrace Pier, Gravesend, at 7%, 8%, 9%, 11%, 1,3, and
5. Sundays, at 8%, 11%, 1,3, and 5.
N.B.—No other packets call at the Grays or Greenhlthe Piers.
Star Office, Gravesend, Dec. 28, 1846.

It was a too close and intimate union between the
kingdoms of France and of Spain which constituted
that danger to the bilance 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 perpetual separa-
tion of the two Crowes, and the perpetual exclusion of
any Prince of the Royal Family of one of the two coml.
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
Kim; of France engaged by the stipulations of the treaty
" Solennellement et par parole de Roi" that neither be
nor his heirs and successors " ne ferout jamais rien, ni
ne permettront que jamais it firt rien fait, capable d'em-
Ocher les renonciations, d'avoir leur plein en, entier
effet." But that, on the contrary, they would take sin-
cere care, and exert themselves, " o.fin que rien no donne
atteinte u ce fondement du salut public, ni no puisse
l'ebranler."
Her Majesty's Government are surprised that in the
fate of such renunciations and of such stipulations and
engagements, the French Government should endeavour
to represent, as implied, though not directly asserted,
in M. Gaizat's dispatch, that the descendants of the
Duke of Montpensier could relieve themselves from the
positive and perpetual exclusion which attachks to them
from the transactions of Utrecht, by the plea that they
would inherit rights from the Infanta Luisa Fernando.
It is manifest that no claim transmitted to them by the
Infanta could counterbalance or set aside the positive
disqualification which they will inherit from the Duke of
Montpensier. Nothing is more common than that the
disqualification inherited by children from one of their
parents should invalidate all the qualification which they
inherit from the other:.
But if there were any value in this implied assertion
of the French Government, and if the marriage of the

PRICE SD.

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 th,,se
renunciations from having their full and entire or et?
The French Government, 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 tis aty.
M. Guizot, wever, 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 France 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 cc n-
tury would be no reason why they should not be appealed
t'9,,and observed by statesmen in the present century, if
,403 e 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.
BEA the cases quoted by M. Guizot are very different
from that of the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier.
'ln 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 Salle 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 rt speet
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 no 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, as asserted 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 consequence of that in-
timate connexion which, notwithstanding the Treaty of
Utrecht, continued to subsist between the 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 evils con-
nected with such a struggle, sound policy may lead them
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, had 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.

`~ t. _~
.___.___._
~ /"
.►