The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-09 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 9, 1847.

newed approbation.) When you see the last remnants of
Poland perish, do you not feel that the liberty and inde-
pendence of other states are seriously endangered? Place
yourself, therefore, at the head of nations who are jealous of
their liberty and independence. Ido not advise a policy of
propagandism. The revolution was propagandist. It had
been provoked by that coalition of Pilnitz, which attacked
not only the liberty but the grandeur of France; and the
great victories and the mad conquests of the empire were the
reply to these provocations. We, in these latter days, have
not had the right given us to be either propagandists or con-
querors ; there has been no congress of Pilnitz against uI ;
let us, therefore, be neither the one nor the other. To make
ourselve propagandists—to excite people against their go-
vernments, would be to attack their liberty, to disturb the
peace in the midst of which they prosper and improve in
knowledge; far be it from us, therefore, to become propa-
gandists. As to conquests, were I to be offered for France
the monarchy of the world, I would not accept it. Let
there be no conquests either, but enlightened protection for
liberty, and a resolute defence of the independence of
states—that is the policy best suited to France; and, if the
better to express my ideas I might be permitted to borrow
an image or an expression from the arts, I would represent
France holding in one hand a chart, on which should be
written "the rights of humanity ;" and the other hand on
the hilt of her sword, on the blade of which should be written
the names of Zurich, Austerlitz, and Friedland.—("Hear,
hear ;" varied movement.) Can we hold out the hand of
fellowship to those who oppress Italy—who threaten the
Swiss confederation—who destroy Poland? To make war
on them would be senseless; let us keep up good relations
with them, but without being on an intimate footing. Your
alliance would be given the lie to by every pulsation of your
heart—by every groan uttered by Italy and by Poland.
Where, then, lies the true alliance for France but in a country
possessing the same feelings? It is only to be found in a
nation whose heart beats in unison with yours—in England.
It is true there is an old spirit of rivals between France and
England ; there are serious difficulties no doubt in the way ;
but I firmly believe that it would be possible to unite the
two countries without sacrifices on our part. I know there
is now a boast of the power of France to combat the whole
world. Yes, she has done so, and might do so again ; but
to remain in a systematic isolation is, I maintain, a bad
policy. I blame the present Cabinet for putting forward
an exclusive sympathy for the Tories, for a party which ,
has in their Parliament abandoned Cracow. Let there be
no preference shown for either Whigs or Tories, although
more hope might be entertained from one than from
the other. It has been said that I forget that the Whigs
outraged France in 1840, but I reply that it is you who
have forgotten it. Is it not you who anxiously hastened to
re-enter the European concert with the Whigs in 1840 ?
and yet you now oppose my sympathy for them. I re-
proach the Government for not having foreseen the danger of
Cracow. You, the Ministers, saw nothing because you had
been told that Cracow had nothing to fear. You believed, in
fact, what you were told.—(Laughter.) But when the
Whigs told you that they did not desire a Coburg marriage
for England, you did not relieve them; and yet, I repeat,
you believed what the three Powers said when they told you
that they entertained no designs against Cracow. say,
more, you defended them from the tribune ! When the
ma.sacres of Galicia were spoken of, you cried, " They are
revolutionists who do those things !" See, then, if you did
right in ceding to certain pre-occupations? The lion.
Deputy here entered into an explanation of the state of Eu-
rope, and, referring to Rome, rendered justice to the efforts of
the l'ope to reform the Roman States. Lately (he con-
tinued), the people cried from behind the Pope, " Courage,
Holy Father ! Courage !" and I also cry in the name of
France, which is calumniated at Rome, " Courage, holy
Father ! Courage! " But suppose that France and
England, notwithstanding the difference of their
policy, had united and cried also to the Pope the
same exclamation, do you believe that it would not
have been a great benefit for humanity in Switzerland
and in Germany? Do you believe that France would not
have been greater when united to England ? And Poland
—what would she not have gained if you had not by the
second marriage severed the union of France and England?
The event of Cracow has no doubt made a painful impression
on you. If the Tories had been still in power, be assured
that you would have seen the three Powers uniting with
them. But he who represents the Whigs is, permit me to
use the expression, odious—(lnterruption)—disagreeable, if
von will, to the three Continental Cabinets. Why did you
not profit by that circumstance to unite your protest to that
of England against the incorporations of Cracow ? As to
ourselves, I hope we shall know how to fulfil our duties, and
I wish with all my heart. that the Queen of Spain may have
heirs, and that the work you have concluded in making the
Spanish marriages may become merely null—for that I be-
lieve to be the happiest thing I can wish to my country.—
(Applause, which lasted for a considerable time.)
The Minister of Foreign Affairs—ln consequence of the
lateness of the hour, and of the necessity of following the
Hon. Deputy through all the details of his speech, I must
pray the Chamber to adjourn the debate until to-morrow.—
(Cries from all points, " Yes, yes.")
The Chamber accordingly rose at Five o'clock.
FEBRUARY 5.
The President took the Chair at two o'clock.

The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the
Address (the reserved paragraph relating to the continuance
of peace).
All the tribunes were crowded.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs— Gentlemen, I owe to
M. Thiers an act of justice, and a grateful acknowledg-
ment ; he clearly defined and brought before you the only
questions that could remain doubtful and obscure, and which
are now the only subject of debate ; he also treated these
questions with moderation, for whilst he filly expressed his
sentiments, he did so in such a manner as to compromise as
little as possible the great national interests at stake. I shall
imitate the Hon. Gentleman in going straight to the exa-
mination of the points attacked, and those alone.—(Hear,
hear.")' I shall also employ in my defence the same frank-
ness and moderation as have been displayed in the attack.
Even with such conditions the discussion remains grave and
difficult ; but it at least may be useful to the country and the
Government, for both have an equal interest that light be
everywhere diffused, without any destructive conflagration
being the consequence.—(Hear, hear.) M. Thiers did not
attack completely and unreservedly the double marriage, and
the policy which led to them. He fully approved of that of
the Queen with Don Francisco, to the exclusion of the other
candidates ; he did not even disapprove at bottom of the
marriage of the Duke de Montpensier wits the Infanta, but
he considered that it had been concluded precipitately and
inopportunely. In his opinion the Government did wrong
to urge the matter on so actively, and was wanting in a fair
and respectful mode of proceeding and consideration towards
a friendly Government, the result being a dangerous position
for France with respect to England arid Europe. There was
no necessity, therefore, according to M. Thiess, to conclude
the second marriage immediately; and there was a want of
fairness in the manner of doing so. I shall examine this
double accusation, and I shall reproach myself strongly if I
descend from this tribune without having proved to you that
there was a strong necessity for our conduct, and that such
conduct was marked by honourable dealing.—(Hear, hear,)
In order to judge of that necessity, it is necessary to have a
precise idea of the very different situations in which we
were placed in June last, when Lord Aberdeen was in
power, and in July, when Lord Palmerston had suc-
ceeded him. From that comparison arose the solution
of the question which I am now examining. Lord
Aberdeen on this subject employed language somewhat
different from ours. In principle he professed the greatest
possible respect for the independence of Spain and of the
young Queen. When any allusion was made to this prin-
ciple, he appeared to accede to it in the fullest sense. But
on this point I said to him, " You imagine you do not in any
way attack that principle in declaring that a French Prince
would be seen with displeasure by England as the Queen's
husband. If you think that in this you do not in any way
attack the independence of Spain and of the Queen, what
more could we do in acting in the same way with respect to
some other candidate?" Lord Aberdeen did not completely
admit this parity in the two situations. But in practice and
fact there was a complete concert and accord between us.
We also proclaimed the same respect, but we added to it the
declaration that we could not consent that the Queen
should marry any other prince than a descendant of the
house of Bourbon. This was in 1843, before the interview
at Eu, our way of thinking, as will appear from the following
dispatch which I wrote to M. de Chabot. (The Hon. Mi-
nister here read the document.) The English Government
fully agreed to our views, as is apparent from the dispatches
of Lord Aberdeen to Lord Cowley. The two Governments
consequently were to act together without employing the
slightest coercion, but merely by counsel and influence to get
the Queen to select a descendant of Philip V. This agree-
ment necessarily set aside the Prince of Coburg. This is a
fact which is proved by a direct act of Lord Aberdeen.
When the English Minister at Madrid joined in the steps
taken with the reigning Duke to demand the Prince of Co-
burg as a husband for the Queen of Spain, what did Lord
Aberdeen do? He disavowed that Minister's acts. I have
no right in this Chamber to make use of the letter which
Lord Aberdeen wrote on this subject to the British Minister.
I shall not do so but with his consent, although I have it in
my portfolio. It contains the declaration that the English
Minister had acted beyond his instructions, and it at the
same time forbids similar conduct for the future. These,
then, I must repeat, were the two points on which the con-
cert was established—to recommend the descendants of
Philip V., and to remove any other candidate foreign to
them. What has been brought forward in opposition to facts
so clear and so positive ? A letter to the Duke de Sotomayor
of the 22d of June. I may remark, in the first place, that the
letter in question is not au instruction given to an English
agent, who acts is a particular sense—it is simply a reply to
a question put by a Spanish Minister. What did Lord Aber-
deen declare in that letter? He maintained completely the
independence of the Queen of Spain, and reminded the
Spanish agent that Spain had good and powerful reasons to
seek for a husband amongst the descendants of Philip V.; he
points out one candidate as preferable to the rest, he also
being of the house of Bourbon, and added that, if France
wished to constrain the choice of Spain, the latter country
might reckon on the sympathies of England. What was
there in this contrary to the two points on which the con-
cert was established ? Positively nothing. I establish,
then, that our situation with Lord Aberdeen was as I have
stated ; and I may add that there never was any mention
made between Lord Aberdeen and myself of the Treaty of
Utrecht ; never was there a word spoken of any right ;
never did Lord Aberdeen make any objection to the mar-
riage of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta.—
(Hear, hear.) Such was the situation in the month of June;
let us now take the month of July. Let me here be per-
mitted to throw aside all idea of comparison between the
Whigs and the Tories with respect to the policy that France
ought to follow relative to England. These distinctions
have lost their value in the present day. All parties in that
country are equally devoted to her interests; all are equally
animated by a friendly feeling towards France. To con-
vince yourselves of this you have only to glance over the
debates of Parliament, and examine the speeches of all the
aenncilinfrom
tio tAhier. Tori
Roebuck—allee to the Radicalsemploy
rt—cehhlefairetsofiaoms mniefLalpotainddrgt
gyuGeaioegndoerl,ge
i' England
el l
gxepnreees sb
etthwce
esna
France
uce desirean fdo rt fnr
gi
la dn
d.
fl(licluelatr' timeshea r.)
the N them o
mostrteri
important
lepi aonr friendsaannot tnhol
members
rmtbhear.st
France.ionf
I have heard more tlloiVarnhdioognsicvifeo.etrrgheeet
under a 'Whig Cabinet. lam certain that that, regret was
Franceart}'
and express
gh
let!
lir
d regretis3t6h aatntdh elBo4roo—dbi dissensions
ioo nu st
theW
betweenhi
me not to remember that during five years policythe of
sincere,tobuptoysNeetrwoef mustord npoatlmdeisrsretogna,rditfamc,tas.B
impossibleon the
r
return
aLcocridisesicibieurdEeenng,lapnadrt(i)cfufleaerblylenheiss,s p
an
of the
con-
nivance. I have even in my portfolio extracts
and I
speeches that were delivered during that France,
could quote them to you if necessary.
I interval, ocfe, w
think I shouldas
oolfic. condescension,towards
have been negligent if I had not remembered
not to feel distrust (I will not use offensive
words),
re-
serve, to see if the policy of England would be changed. It
was my duty to be reserved, and I was so. So muched to
omordtsr
beuftac ts
,
the general facts. Particular ones soon occur
r I will reduce those facts to two ,
occurred
fof
com-
mand still greater reser\ e.
thedisrpeapti;ing
h of Jtoulmyyl9le,ttaenrd. the silence stohalotnagismpaatienhtaine
before con-
tain? ln it the Prince of Coburg is named, and why was he
mentioned if he had no chance of success? The dispatch
contains the declaration that England had no objections to
make to any of the candidates named; but not a word is said
of France—nor a suggestion to Spain on the policy to be
L pursued towards us. There is, then, thia difference between

the letter of Lord Aberdeen to the Duke de Sotomayor, and
Lord Palmerston's dispatch of July 19; that in the latter
there is the Prince of Coburg the more, and a mention of
France the less.—(Hear, hear.) That, then, is the differ-
ence between the two situations, the two policies. It is
now said, Lord Palmerston ceased to support the Prince of
Coburg, and admitted that the candidateship of Don Enrique
was preferable. Let us see the value of this double fact.
On the 20th of duly we proposed to England to concert with
us to support the candidateship of the princes, the sons of
Don Francisco de Paulo, and on the 28th of August only we
received a reply. I shall now point out what was don* in
jot interval. (The Hon. Member here read the dispatches
orthe Count de Jarnac of the 21st and 24th of July, and the
13th of August, and continued.)-1 ask the Chamber whether
these dispatches are reassuring on the subject of the can-
didateship of the Prince of Coburg. In fact, it was on the
28th of August only that England spoke of Don Enriqne,
and of him alone to the exclusion of every other. I ask whether
this was not rather late? But I take as an hypothesis, for a
moment, the exclusive candidateship of Don Enrique. It was
evident that the Prince had little chance of being favourably
received at Madrid by the Queen, by the Queen-Mother, or
by the Government. We should, therefore, have been very
imprudent had we reduced our wishes to that sole candidate.
Are you aware that if Don Enrique had triumphed it was a
revolution? A change of policy in Spain must have ensued.
The agent of England Lad several times written to his Go-
vernment that it was his conviction that Don Enrique might
become the husband of the Queen by a revolution; that he
might enter the palace of the Queen as a conqueror, though
not as a pretender to her hand. The entry of Don Enrique
into the palace as a conqueror implied the destruction of our
policy of Madrid. We could not accept such a combination.
—(Approbation from the Centre.) I now return to the
Prince of Coburg. I admit that the influence of England in
no way pushed him on ; I admit that she left the question to
the choice of Spain alone. I am here compelled to repeat
what I have many times said, both in the Chambers and in
my dispatches—the Spanish Government has always wished
for one or other of these two marriages, either the French
or the English one. She wished, after that event should
have taken place, to have the support either of France or of
England. The Spanish Government, menaced by revolu-
tion, was anxious to conclude the marriage. It would no
longer postpone the solution of that great question ; the
Queen-Mother, the Queen, and the Government—all were
anxious to have it completed. The Spanish Government
absolutely wishing to terminate the question, what took
place? A proposition was made to us by the Court of
Madria ; and at the time the case for us was pressing, for
there danger threatened. On the 9th of August the Spanish
Government proposed to us to marry the Queen to Don
Francisco de Assis, on condition that the other marriage, that
of the Infanta to the Duke de Montpensier, should be also
agreed to. In this state of the question we should have been
blind and culpable—we should have failed in our relations
with Spain, to have refused that proposition ; for had we done
so, we should have thrown Spain under the influence of Eng-
land. I was right, then, in saying at the commencement, that
there was for us a necessity, which arose from the difference of
our situation with respect to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Pal-
merston. I consider this to lee established in irrefragable
evidence.— (Approbation from the Centre.) I now arrive at the
question of honourable dealing. For my part I have never ac-
cused the intentions or good faith of any one, but in discuss-
ing them have always assumed that they were only errors
and faults of conduct. I have always respected and observed
this rule in every situation; the liberty and dignity of
diplomatic relations and of Parliamentary discussions depead
on it. Whatever, therefore, may be the conduct observed
towards me, or by whom, I shall always follow this course.
I protest, first of all, against the introduction of a name which
hen been improperly employed at London in this discussion.
Not more abroad than at home, not more between two con-
stitutional Governments than in each individually, ought
that name to mixed up in political discussions. To in-
troduce it, to make use of it, is conduct deserving of the
strongest censure.—(Hear, hear.) I shall, as I do at pre-
sent, always protest against such a violation of constitutional
rules, from whatever quarter it may proceed.—(Movement.)
I now enter into the question of good faith, and what is
called procides • and in doing so, I feel the necessity of lay-
ing textually before the Chamber the documents and the
language of the Government. I speak not of documents
concocted after the event has taken place, and for the pun
poses of defence, but of documents that passed during the
conduct of the affair. The Chamber will see that everywhere,
at London, at Paris, and in Spain, our proceedings have been
upright and honourable, such as they ought to be between
Governments that respect each other.—(Here the Hon.
Minister read a long dispatch written by himself, in which
he expressed surprise at the reproach made by Lord Palmers-
ton of a failure of procedes ; insisted on the facts which in-
timated, on the part of the English Government, not a policy
of cordial understanding, but an isolated one ; and indicated
that France might also have an isolated policy in Spain. )
Such (he continued) was our conduct at London, departing
in no respect from the consideration and good faith which
the Government of Great Britain had a right to expect from
the French Cabinet. Let us now see what were our proceed-
ings at Madrid. The employment of violent means, of mO-
- coercion, of a consent wrung from the Queen in the mid t
of an orgie, have been spoken of. A dispatch of Lord Pa s-
merston contains these odious accusations, and I repel thelm
in the strongest manner. As soon as M. de Bresson heard
of them he was profoundly moved, and hastened to deny
them. (M. Guizot here read letters from M. de Breeson,
protesting strongly against such allegations; he stated that
he passed the evening of the 28th of August at home, in his
house at Madrid, and that it was only on the morning of
the 29th that he received a note informing him that the mar-
riages were settled.) The Queen adopted, therefore (con-
tinued M. Guizot), her resolutions in full liberty. M. de
Bresson said not a word, took not a step that could influence
her determination ; never did he go out of the range of com-
monplace proceedings, and whenever he obtained an audi.
ence of her Majesty the doors of the Cabinet were left open.
There was then no moral coercion, no cunning tricks, no vio-
lence, but all was done freely. Let us now see the procedes at
Paris. The Chamber will pardon me for entering into de.
tails, but I desire to leave no doubt in the minds of my ad-
versaries. When I informed Lord Normanby that the mar-
riages were settled, he asked if they would both be concluded
at lithe same time? I replied that they would not, and I was
right in so replying; for, at the moment at which I spoke,
' not only was nothing as yet decided, but we were labour-
ing at Bladrid to prevent the simultaneousness of the two
marriages. The Queen-Mother insisted strongly on that
point, but we opposed it; and M. de Bresson wrote to me
that he had had to contend a whole day against Queen
Christina, and that it was with the greatest trouble that lie
had succeeded in maintaining in the stipulations the words
autant qee faire, se pourrait, which constituted our liberty of
action. We ware then in the right in saying that the two
marriages would not be simultaneous, for we laboured to
prevent them, and M. de Bresson, in order to obtain that
point, even went the length of ,threatening to annul all that
had been done. At a later period, however, M. de 13resson
wrote word that the Spanish Ministers manifested deep
regret that the marriage of the Infanta had not been an-
nounced to be celebrated at the same time as that of the
Queen. He recognised all the gravity of the reasons that the
Spanish Ministers put forward, namely, the importance of
preteintssiotnhauhadnedrsi,nittrivig,asuesn;ecaenssdarasy
by the susceptibility to hurry on the affair,or incur the risk of never being par-
donedility and dignity of the Spanish nation.
The two marriages had been agreed on ; if we again gave
the closing()
Opposition
t io n lists
was against
preparing
Duke d e Montpensier,
we should have
up to all the chances and all the uncertainties of the future
the marriage of the
failed in all we owed to the Spanish Government. We had
decided on concluding the marriage of the Queen with Don
Francisco de Assis; we could no longer resist allowing that
of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta, which had
reposed in as
and deceiving the confidence Our Ambassa-
dorbled
been the condition for the first, without breaking our faith
marriage of the Infanta ; we were pledged not only in
policy, to agree to the simultaneousness of
pointed out to us incontesta angers in delaying the
honour, but also in
the marriages ; of manyo shoalsce to avoid ; the
Spanish Cabinet might go out • . Our Ambassador
more urgent, and we agreed to the mea-
every day became
as right on the
sure. Just as much as w
Sep-
tember in saying that the marriages would not take place
on the 4th '
we had still'
at the same time, so was I right,of September, on
of •t, but • ; I think I should
did not inform Lord Normanby
wanting in the most common prudence if, in pre-
have been
deciding that they should be simultaneous. It is true that I
opposition, I had •
his weapons.— A itat.
Palmerston time to prepare ( g
ion.) 1
the second dispatch of the English Ambas-
sador,sence of a declared and active given Lord
now arrive at
September, and to the conversations
I have a fewpreliminary remarks
which I had with him.
ambassador does me the honour to call
to offer. When an
.t.
dated the 25th of
me questions, is not to an interrogatory
such a case bound to the truth, but
tolni a tmle saunbdmti ot
ask;
I only reply so I am
in
suits the interest of my have
(Applause the accounts of a conversa-
tionto make, is that I cannot
his Government Ambassador to
tic sent by an_document. In order to simplify
and unobjectionab e
(Applause from the Centre ) Another observation that I have
the question, I will say that the English Ambassador enter-
tainedthis point, fur he came to me
on the 2d of September to communicate to me his dispatch
of the Ist, amid to ask whether he had rendered an exact the same opinion on
ac-
count of our conversation. The Ambassador considered that
after this proof. The Ambassador
of irrefragability until
~ias rig • ht in his opinion,and Iwill this to the
prove
that when it was shown to me
a dispatch could not acquire a character of authenticity and
Chamber, by remarking,
which, on my
sup-
plied. Gentlemen, in the documents I
public, imposed
part, I considered it proper to make
withheld all which
great reserve on myself. I carefully
I pointed out an omission which the Ambassador
had a character of personality or uncertainty. The
Cham-
ber may have convinced itself of this by examining the
documents which have been laid before it. In this dis-
cussion, also, I only read those which I consider as strictly
necessary and incontestable. Ido not wish to reproach any
one, but I must be allowed to say, that if the Engli .
.h
Ambassador had done me the honour of showing me bis
dispatch of September 25, as he did that of the 22d, I should
have spoken otherwise, and perhaps better, than he has made
me speak.—(Agitation and laughter.) On the 25th of Sep-
tember the state of affairs was completely changed; the
British Ambassador brought me the protest of his Govern-
ment against the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier—a
protest announcing that England would do everything in
her power to prevent that mar '
at the same time from Spain,to me that, in fact,
announcing
nothing was neglected to accomplish that end.
I saw a
great effort made at home and abroad against the solution
which we had agreed to. I saw and felt myself—and the
expression that I am about to use is not intended to offend
any one—l felt myself in the of an adversary.—
(Sensation.) presence
but what
was true, but also tosaying anything that
might injure my refrain from say
question,
that of good faith, cause.
Here, then, is the second
set at rest, and as completely cleared up
at Madrid, at London, of neces-
sity. We have on, and at Paris, as the question
ht
to have done. throughout done nothing but whatxzigh
This double question, then,
the proof that it is
resolved
concludey
one of the •was impossible for us
the demonstrationmarriages without the other, and by
that good faith had beenscrupu-
lously respected, We
We took into serious consideration
the engagement •
into which hadentered, but we looked
we
also to the necessity which
arose. A second question now
remains, more important shall be brief
upon
than the first; but I
upon it. I allude to the consequences that the solution given
to the Spanish m •
Spain, in England, in may
produce on our situation in
the gravity of the 'n Europe.— (Hear, hear.) Ido not deny
situation •
ion , on the contrary, I wish that the
Chamber and the country
situations create ntrY may perfectly understand it. Grave
wise conduct, and wise conduct decides
grave situations.—(Hear.) I repeat, then, that I will say no-
thing that can have the
situation •so far from effect of lessening the gravity of the
make the Chamber it,mor I could desire that my words should
it must not be ealive
to it. But, at the same time,
it really is. M. '
representedthiers as graver or more complex than
that we ought to maintain perfectly defined the situation
nothing to ask, nothing n with respect to Spain. We have
policy. If there be in hatot desire from her, but a friendly
to France, we desire nothing country a Government friendly
we have made ourselves the else; it is not true to say that
patrons
Cham-
ber will see the proofs of that in of a party. The
in 1843 and 1844. On the fall of dispatches which I wrote
by the union of the Moderado the Regency of Espartero,
Progressistas, I wrote to recommend to with a portion of the
to Spain union and con-
ciliation, and condemned everything
ranco-ar. (The Honourable Ministerin approaching to party
he had written to that effect.) We had not the mast:
ea thato
f
sayl rencoetihviendgdispatches
id

making ourselves the followers of a party, but it is true that
we have been faithful to our friends. We would not hesi-
tate again to act iu the same. manner. What has been the
consequence? That France and Spain have concluded a
great act—have contracted new ties. I do not exaggerate
the value of family unions; but when the interests of two
countries are identical, the marriages of princes have a
powerful effect in drawing closer their connexion. And in
that lies the importance that I attach to these marriages.
Do not believe the grave error which becomes day after day
more credited, that relations between nations result only
from material influences, and nothing of interest, when the
truth is that personal sentiments play a grand part in than.
Policy is founded on the sentiments, on the instincts, on
the wants of the soul ; and this mechanical system Co which
it is at present desired to reduce the life of societies is
false, and to be deprecated.—(hear, hear.) 'We are evi-
dently in a better situation with respect to Spain than we
were before the marriages. These marriages were contracted
freely, and the elections that took place afterwards in Spain
were also made in full liberty. At the present moment the
Spanish Cabinet is undergoing a change. But does not
that completely prove the independence of Spain—the free
play of her instituticns? Yes; the elinistry which concluded
the marriage gives up its place to another; but is that a re-
action against us? No ; for one of the principal members
of the new Cabinet wafethe reporter on the marriages in the
Cortes. There is no anti-French movement—there is free
play of institutions—that is all, and our policy sustains no
injury I Such is our position with respect to Spain. A word
on England. Deceive not yourselves, the interests, the in •
stincts, the causes of action which induced England and
France to desire to live well together, in spite of so many
circumstances incessantly arising in opposition to harmony,
are so powerful that they will surmount passing dissensions.
England believes that what has occurred is injurious to the
liberty and the foreign policy of Spain. I trust to time to
prove to England that there may be good relations between
France and Spain, without dependence on the part of the
latter country. England believes herself to be threatened
in the Mediterranean. This is a serious error. When the
treaty of Utrecht was concluded, the influence of England in
the Mediterranean was not what it is at present. That treaty
gave Gibraltar to England, but then she had rot yet Malta,
on the other side. Fur the last hundred years the equili-
brium of the treaty of Utrecht has been always broken for
the benefit of England and to our detriment. The posses-
sion of Algeria, and the good intelligence between France and
Spain, are at the most but a compensation for what England
has acquired. lam very far from regarding the Mediter-
ranean as a French lake. That is one of those unfortunate
expressions calculated to cause difficulties between nations.
The Mediterranean neither is nor can be a French lake; but
it possesses too much importance for France for her not to
watch with much solicitude on all the changes that may take
place in that quarter. I repeat, that fur a hundred years all
those changes have been to our detriment. The uneasiness
of England is unjust and erroneous. Facts will, before long,
demonstrate this, and will prove the justice of the conside-
rations which I submit to the Chamber. I begin to feel
fatigued, and I shall in consequence be very brief in my
remarks on Continental Europe. As to the three great
Powers, their conduct and their attitude with regard to
the question of Spain have given us no sign of complaint.
They have not adhered to the policy of
,England, notwith-
standing that solicitations have been made to induce them
to do so. Only—do not deceive yourselves—these solicita-
tions will be probably confirmed, and fresh efforts will be
made. If the King's Government guards well the position
it has taken—if it continues the policy of preserving
European order without abandoning anything of the prin-
ciples in accordance with the revolution of July —do not
fear that the great Powers will engage themselves against
us. 'You cannot reckon on their sympathy, but you may
on their prudence, their intelligence, and on their well
understood interests.—(Sensation.) They have proved this to
you for the last sixteen years, and they will continue to prove
it if you do not depart from the line of policy which is our
own. A last word on the secondary Powers to whom M.
Thiers alluded en passant yesterday, and who must be taken
seriously into account. Will you allow me to say what has
happened to them in this affair of the Spanish marriages?
When the secondary Powers do not fear France has a revo-
lutionary and conquering Power, they are well disposed to-
wards her, and desire to see her strong. I venture to say
that they have not now any apprehensions from her.—
(Laughter on the left.) And I congratulate myself on it for
the interest of my country ; for, be assured, that on the day
when France shall no longer be regarded as a revolutionary
and a conquering Power, her strength already so great will
be considerably increased. The secondary Powers have
seen in the aflair of the Spanish marriages a proof of the
strength and of the independence ofour policy. They have
all declared this opinion. Gentlemen, the affair of the
Spanish marriages is the first grand thing that we have
effected completely single-handed in Europe since 1830.
(Sensation.) Impartial Europe has delivered her judgment
to that effect. Be assured that this event has strengthened
us in Spain and given us strength in Europe, particularly in
the ideas of the secondary Powers, who witness with joy the
success of our policy. Let us not, then, depart front the
line of policy which I have traced out ; with Spain, good
relations and common interests; with England, good con-
duct and sentiments of kindness; with the continental
Powers, provided you persevere in the policy of Conserva-
tism.—(Loud interruption ou the left.) If it is necessary
every instant to recommence the struggles which we have
sustained in this Chamber; if it be again necessary to prove
that the policy of order and Conservatism is not one of abase-
ment, but that it has increased and honoured the name of
France in Europe—(Approbation in the centre, murmurs on
the left)—discussion is no longer possible. W e must start
from points already settled—results obtained by our discus-
sions
here during the last seventeen years. No; this policy
of order and of Conservatism has not humbled France, but it
has elevated her, has doubled her influence, and has made
her name respected in Europe. And, if that policy had not
teen followed, we should not have been in a state to have
resolved the question of the Spanish marriages; or, rather,
the decision would have been against us.—(Loud marks of
approbation, followed by great agitation.) The sitting was
suspended for a quarter of an hour.
M. Billault—The Minister for Foreign Affairs was right
when he said that wise conduct arranges difficult situations;
but he ought to have added that it foresees them also. The
discussion yesterday showed the great gravity of the present
situation; that of this day has not diminished that gravity,
and we are on the eve of again seeing in Europe four Powers
against us. During 17 years the great difficulty of our
policy has been that eventuality, and we have already en-
countered it on more than one occasion. The task of a great
Government is to triumph over difficulties, to seek new
combinations which assure at the same time the liberty and
the security of the country. But though we have had this
difficult problem before us for more than seventeen years, I
demand if a single step has been made towards its solution?
Have the embarrassments of 1840 prevented a new cloud
from arising in 1846 and 1847? The Government has never
dared to grapple boldly with the difficulty; but successive
palliatives have been employed, sometimes towards one
Power, sometimes towards another. Such conduct is not
worthy of a great people; it is perilous to a Government;
and it is important to ascertain this day how the danger
may be conjured away. For seventeen years the three
found
which them
for
seventeen in
years
hbusiness
has
sought
nl
a in
Powers have entertained the same sentiments towards you;
good
they have been the same in the affair of Belgium, in the
affairs of the east, and in other questions. Recently, too,
you
tainin
what
they did, and in the manner of doing it. Thus a Govern-
ment,relations with all, has seen the treaties of 1815 torn to pieces
before its eyes. During that period England has created
for herself a marvellous position ; each day she profits by
our difficulties with Europe, sad menaces us. The Minister
for Foreign Affairs has told us that reiterated efforts would
be made against us among the continental Powers. What
is the reason, then, of this difficulty with respect to the con-
tinent and England ? Between the continent and ourselves
there aro no reasons which prevent an alliance. Russia, for
her interests, has more reason to dread England than France.
With Austria also we have no commercial rivalry, Prussia,
by her geographical position, and the spirit of her people, ap•
proaches nearer and nearer to us every day; but she dreads
the spirit of conquest, by which she supposes us animated.
The northern Powers are well aware that the France of the
present day does not possess the spirit of conquest felt by
preceding generations, but it is necessary for them to guard
those appearances with the nations which they govern. It is
for us to protest against such a supposition, and to destroy
these calumnies. At the commencement of this discussion
I endeavoured to remove the accusation of perpetuating
amongst us that spirit of conquest, and I was happy to
hear the same ideas expressed both by M. Odillou Barrot
and by M. Thiers.—(Murmurs.) When, after seventeen
years, the Government has done everything to destroy
the opinion that Franca is animated with the spirit of
conquest, and the whole opposition here makes the same
declaration, it is of importance that those words should re-
sound beyond the Rhine, and that it should be clearly
understood that those who make the accusation calum-
niate France. As to the spirit of liberty, it depends
on no one in this assembly to stop its development—it
extends every day beyond our frontiers it works an
effect throughout Germany which no power can arrest.
This progress of the spirit of liberty is the law of the
world, and far from being an obstacle it will soon be
a bond between those people and ourselves. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs has just told us that, by continuing
our general policy—that moderation and spirit of Con-
servatism which the Government has constantly followed
—all difficulties will disappear. For 17 years we have
practised that moderate policy, and such has not been
the result. (Murmurs and marks of approbation.)
France, by her position, cannot abdicate the part which she
has performed in Europe. Whenever you have made a
special concession to the northern Powers you have not
solved the • difficulty, you have only postponed it. The
situation of affairs is ruled by a necessity which
escapes your power ; 'out furtunately the evil carries
with it its own remedy. What will best secure the future
welfare of our country is to break the union of the three
northern Powers in the point of view of the liberty of their
people. For some time Germany has evinced strong consti-
tutional tendencies, and from the day when the Prussian
nation shall have a constitutional Government, the alliance
of the three Powers will be destroyed. I know that our
part is not to combat, but to aid, support, and to en-
conrage. There is a remarkable movement now going on
in the world; the smaller Powers display uneasiness at
the attitude taken by the great ones. Look at what is
passing in Sweden and en the banks of the Rhine. The
English alliance was in a former sitting pointed out as
affairs, and
the remedy for the present state of affai
it
is to
this remark that I would more particularly call the at-
tention of the Chamber. Were it a sincere and serious
alliance with England, we should heartily
applaud it;
but the question is to know what price we should be re-
quired to pay for it. Do you imagine that the fall of any po-
litical personage from power would consolidate our relations
with the British Government? Do you not rather believe
that a good understanding with England must be re• pur-
chased at the price of fresh concessions? What it is im-
portant to our country and the Chamber to know is, by
what conduct we may avoid the dangers which have been
pointed out, and find a sure support in Europe. Is it by
concessions in words or in deeds that we shall re-enter into
the English alliance? If the facts are as grave as they are
represented, we must do something if we want to effect
?our
reconciliation. At what price shall we purchase it
(Murmurs from the centre:) But that is not what ou
most to excite our attention, for to re-enter the English
alliance is not to resolve the great difficulty which separates
us front continental Europe, but to adjourn t. Do, you
believe that England will aid us to establish a good
Nben, during
under-
standing with the Cabinets of the North, v
seventeen years, her interests being different to ours, she has
turned towards them, and compelled uspurchase her
to
.the three Powers
co-
operation, whilst to obtain something from
she has promulgated a more intimate union with us? Is it
liberality a position that
likely she will abandon from
purehas been said about
enables her so to act?
Agreat deal berality
revolution of 1830, but her
eaten
doing so was a simple
England having recognised thelation to create distrust between
rs which during the Restoration
had been on such friendly
France and the Northern Powei
termsr as to lessen her ascendancy.
The proof that such was the cause is that the recognition
was made by a Tory
Government. At alf ter period, in the
English alliance, did England either in
Belgium, Spain, o
heroic times of file
ri
Portugal, sustain a liberal and generous
policy when her material interests did not suffer from it?
We cannot, then, again enter into the English alliance with-
out sacrifices. But is that alliance indispensable to us? M.
Thiess and M. Guizat, who .
have carried it out, have not be-
lieved that. (Here the lion. Deputy read extracts from the

speeches of those statesmen to prove that assertion.) The
attitude of England is such that you have nothing serious
or stable to expect from it, and vet you will recommence a
third time what you have alteac'ty proved twice. If that is
what the alliance promises, why return to it? Why not
maintain our independence with good relations? Do you
believe that it will suffice to be friendly and circumspect to-
wards foreign Powers. You will not advance your affairs in
that way. Seek not, then, an alliance with England; seek
not alliances with the Northern Powers. But be certain
that you cannot find any better auxiliaries than the
generous ideas that ferment among nations. In that is
strength, in that is the future! But you will he alone, you
are told. Yes, if you call it being alone to have all gene-
rous sympathies with you! In conclusion, I will call to
mind a fact. One day it was desired to place France apart,
or rather, to treat her as if she no longer existed—it was the
day of the treaty of Vienna. But, it. was thought that
nothing could be stable without her, and she was called in.
Do you believe that the Powers of Europe will dare refuse
to the France so powertid by her strength of cohesion, and by
the sympathies of nations, what they spontaneously offered
to the France of the conquered empire? We fear it not. I
will only add, that I have not endeavoured to arouse the
passions of the Chamber; I have only sought to expose to it
some useful ideas, and l believe I have done that.

On the demand of M. Berryer the debate was adjourned to
the next day.
The Chamber rose at a quarter to six o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
ROUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 8.
The House of Lords sat to-day at ten o'clock, to hear ap-
peals and writs of error. The Peers present were the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Templemore, and the
Bishop of Ely.