The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-08 00:00:00

THE SUN

The •
President took the Carr at tw,,
MTh
order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the
te_p•
-resident observed, that as paragraphs 3,4, 5,6, bad
_ell disposed of, paragraph 2, which had been reserved,
woll_1(1 now come under discussion.
•Thiers ascended the tribune amidst marks of general
`,!lerttion, and spoke as follows :—lf the Chamber deigns to
12)' attention to my actions, it must have perceived the
Ztieme repugnance which I have for some days past exhi-
bited to interfere in this disestssion—though not because
fan find in the subject which occupies us any cause for em-
!Frassment. How, in fact, can it be possible for us, the
Members of the Opposition, who are not the authors of the
present situation, to be embarrassed in expressing our senti-
ments? That situation, as you are aware, is this—that
e.rance, by the deplorable event of Cracow,. is -separated from
Pe continental powers, and by the Spanish marriages is em-
broiled with England ; so that the isolation' which a -few
Years hack we recommended to her as i'monientary policy—
as a dignified means of re-entering the European concert, and
which the Government then rejected as altogether objec-
tionable, is now forcedly the policy of France.—(Hear,
hear.) Nor is that all at home a bad harvest, which is
the fault of no one, coinciding with e financial position,
which is the fault of some one, has rendered the internal
situation of the country as disastrous as the fireign one. All
this the Opposition certainly has not caused, and therefore
could not feel embarrassment in alluding to it in presence of
the persons whose duty it was to act. The object of my
hesitation was therefore different—it was an apprehension
of aggravating by my words the inconveniences of the situ-
ation. But in a representative government it is impossible
to pass over in silence events so important as those which
now occupy our attention. I come forward, therefore, to
!peak, not that I pretend to succeed the Hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs—long since I have given up all ideas of that
kind—not because I imagine that I can express myself better
than has been already done by gentlemen noted for their
talents and reasoning powers, but because I have my own
views to expose and defend. It is my custom to think
aloud—to speak freely; and since these events have occurred
I have not concealed my opinion—it has been published. If,
therefore, at the grand moment of discussion I were to hesi-
tate, I should expose myself to the charge of weakness. I
have beheld in what was going on a most lamentable con-
fusion of ideas, and I cannot disguise from the Chamber of
Deputies my sentiments on the subject.—(Hear. hear.) It
is now 17 years since I have taken part in public affairs, and
if during that period I have learned in some degree the art
of stating matters difficult to be exposed I shall employ it
to-day while infusing into my language all the reserve
that is desirable. If you do me the honour to
listen to me patiently to the end, I shall testify to you my
gratitude both by the moderation and, pardon me
for adding, the utility of my words. I now proceed to ex-
amine the whole situation, characterised principally by the
two facts of the Spanish marriages and the incorporation of
Cracow. As to the former, my opinion is that the union of
Queen Isabella with the lufante Don Francisco de Assis is
good; but that the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier
with the Infanta Donna Luisa was attended in several re-
spects with grave inconveniences—that it was premature—
and that it will complicate the situation. It will be said, and
I ana prepared for the assertion, that this opinion serves the
pretensions of a foreign Government. I bring to this place
the most perfect impartiality, and I have always thought
that the interests of Spain were closely united to ours; and
it was with that idea that I was one of the authors of the
treaty of quadruple alliance. That treaty had two objects—
the first, to prevent a counter-revolution in Spain ; the
second, to establish good relations with England on a ques-
tion of a most difficult character, and at the same time most
likely to create differences between the two countries. The
first object was but imperfectly attained—Spain was only
partially saved from a counter-revolution. In the second we
were more fertunate, as the two nations entered on a struggle
for influence in Spain, France patronising the Moderado
party, and England the Progressist. That was an unfortu-
nate policy ; for, in adopting it, France and England ex-
posed themselves to protect only the intrigants of both
parties. It was on the marriage question, in particular,
that this struggle of influence was certain to manifest
itself. Permit me to state to you the object pursued severally
with respect to this matter, by France. by Spain, and by
England. France laid down the principle that the choice of
the Queen could only fall on one of the descendants of the
Rouse of Bourbon. 1 will not repeat what has been said on
that point ; I will only
.make one observation, and that is,
that formerly such an exigency might have been understood ;
but since one part of the house of Bourbon is engaged in the
principles of the revolution, the other in those of the counter-
revolution, how is it possible to lay down so absolute a prin-
ciple ? I can understand that I shall be asked—" What
~Woold. you have said if the pretensions of the Prince of
°axe-Coburg had triumphed?" I should, it is true, have
blamed you. But permit me to ask what you yourselves
would have said, if, conquered by events, you had not been
able to prevent the Prince of Coburg from obtaining the
hand of Queen Isabella ? Would you not have said—" The
Prince of Coburg is closely allied to the Royal Family of
France; the Prince of Coburg adopts the principles of the
revolution; the head of the house of Coburg occupies a
constitutional throne at the very frontier of France ?" But
You have done well to exclude the Prince of Coburg; good.
France desired a prince of the house of Bourbon ; good again.
And what did Spain desire? Span; in this case was repre-
sented by Queen Christina, by the sovereign who had long
governed the country, and who, moreover, is the mother of
the Queen, and, as such, had rights worthy of respect.
What then did Queen Christina desire? She, above all, was
opposed to her nephews. This I declared last year, but the
assertion was treated as erroneous; the documents have
since shown that I was right. She had first thought of ob-
taining for the Queen the hand of the Duke de Montpensier.
When it was proved to her by French and European reasons
that such a union was impossible, she turned towards the
Prince of Coburg, and demanded him from everbody in the
warmest manner. It was only when Queen Christina, the real
head of the Moderado party in Spain, had learned, to use
Lord Cowley's expression, that a union with a prince of
Coburg would fling you into consternation, that she gave
up the idea. In order to obtain that prince, two consents
—that of the house of Coburg, and that of France—were
necessary. The house of Coburg saw in such an alliance
fresh ties uniting it with the two countries with which it
was connected; it saw in it the completion of its great-
ness. Nevertheless, not to give offence to either of the two
nations, it refused ; or, what amounts to the same thing,
made its consent dependent on that of France. As to
England, she would assuredly have desired that a prince
of the house of Coburg might be placed on the throne of
Spain. But, considering the unheard-of vivacity with
which France repulsed the candidateship of the Prince of
Coburg. Queen Christina understood that, if France and
Spain became embroiled, the advantages of the marriage of
the Queen with the Prince of Coburg were not to be placed
in comparison with the dangers which it might produce to the
tranquillity of Europe. She, therefore, renounced the idea,
and sought another union for her daughter. It was then
that she entered on the policy which I blame, and turned
her attention to a Prince who had placed himself at the
head of the Progressist party. Don Enrique was, however,
soon abandoned. You did not consider him a very dan-
gerous candidate, since you did not think of opposing him.
But I agree with you that above all things it was important
to remove the Prince of Coburg. This, then, was what was
desired by the three Powers—France wished for a Bourbon ;
Spain, represented by Queen Christina, for a Coburg ; and
England the same. but she afterwards gave up that desire,
and to indemnify herself demanded Don Enrique. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that a kind of under-
standing was come to at Eu on the subject of the Spanish
marriages. I shall not discuss the object of that arrange-
ment, but I shall state on what points it bears. According
to it, France renounced the hand of the Queen for the Duke
de Montpensier, and declared furthermore that she should
not put forward any pretensions for the hand of the Infanta,
except in the event of the Queen giving heirs to the Crown.
As the price of these concessions, the French Cabinet de-
manded that England should not support the marriage of
Queen Isabella with the Prince of Coburg, The Hon. Minister
pretends that he observed those engagements faithfully as
long as those agreed to by England remained inviolate.
Well, then, I have read all the documents, and I sincerely
declare that they absolutely contradict the double allegation
of the Hon. Minister. They appear to me to prove that the
conduct both of the Whigs and Tories was absolutely the
same with regard to the Spanish marriages, and that if there
were any difference it was that the Vs showed them-
selves more opposed than the Tories to the marriage of the
Queen to the Prince of Coburg.—(Murmurs.) I shall not read
the documents to the Chamber, but shall merely give a brief
analysis el them. If anything I say is contested as being
inexact or incomplete, I can reply by reading the part in
question. In the first place, in the dispatches of Lord Aber-
deen to Lord Cowley, was there anything in contradiction
to this—that the question of the Spanish marriages is a
purely Spanish sae, with which no one had any right to in-
terfere? and Lord Cowley never went beyond the assurance
that a candidate of the house of Bourbon would meet with
no opposition on the part of England. You see that the
Tories confined themselves to simple inaction. On a commu-
nication front the Spanish Cabinet, the Tories replied that
that Government was free to choose the candidate which ap-
peared to it the most suitable, and that if it selected one not
belonging to the house of Bourbon, it might, in order to
maintain the independence of its choice, reckon on the warm
sympathies of England. Lord Aberdeen and the Tories ap-
pear to me in this instance to have departed from that in-
difference attributed to them by the Minister of Foreign
Affairs. The Whigs afterwards came into power. I shall, at
a later period, explain myself more at length on what is im-
properly called the English alliance, but for the moment I
shall confine myself to the Spanish question. The Whigs
succeeded to power; they were still beneath the weight of
the reminiscences of 1840; they were full of regrets; they
felt that they had not followed a sound line of policy, and
that that fault had nearly prevented their return to power.
In the state of the world, at that time, it was a fortunate
circumstance that the Whigs came into power in that frame
of mind. For my own part, I think it would have been easy
for the French Government to have come to an understanding
with the Whigs, if the former had not been influenced by a
feeling of distrust. Whati was the conduct of the Whig Go-
vernment? It declared its turn to Spain that she was
perfectly free to act; anti only addressed to her some repre-
sentations on certain unwise
and violent measures of its Go-
vernment, which every one blaetride.d. It is true that the Prince
etch of the 19th of July
of Coburg is pointed out in th
in the list of candidates. But tllip s not doing more than
what had been done by Lord Aberdeenwa when be assured
in the event of
Spain of the warm sympathies of England
Wofasß.ourbon.
her choice falling on a prince not of heho
I admit that the dispatch of the 19th July was
measure equivocal ; but immediately after a discussion
arose arose between the English and French Cabinets. Franceio
spoke of the engagements at Eu ; Lord Palmerston replied
—" I know nothing of them ; England has no particular
candidate ; but if you wish to know our opinion, we prefer
Don Enrique." The answer of France was--" It you
wish for Don Enrique, unite with us at Madrid to promote
his candidateship." I find dispatches dated 29th July,
and the 3d, 16th. and 221 of August, and these all begin
with these words—" I told 31. de Jarnac ;" so that the
contents of the ispatches addressed to Mr. Bulwer
could be no secret to us. All of these dispatches said—
that Prince to be Don Enrique," Of n B
the 3d td. August Lord
Palmerston_ wrote to Mr. Bulwer, "We should desire the
ueeshouldb
nd
toe Prince of Saxe-Coburg it that choice
agreeable to S
France; but in p
n, and should not embroil us with
thei pent state of thing, Don Eurique is a
preferable candit i.e.',res On the 24d of August, Lord Palmer-
ston addressed a dispatch to Mr. Bulwer, which was commu-
nicated to M. G
by Lord Norinanbv on the 28th. Its
of that h,ese_the ths►t•• England adhered te the caudidateship
pessible to chote Bourbon ; there were three Princes
Queen ; Dun Francisco did not recognise the r
e,
as
hen ce. Mentemol wtrom it was irn-
ights of the
recommend , and Don Enrique, .A 3481 wle•in England could n,,t
What was the reply of
15ili!que, whom she recommended.,,
condition
adhere to the which gave
That " he could not
ference to one of the two brothers,-aye an exclusive pre-
jection to make to the candidatesh- but that he had no ob-
he willingly agreed to the re of Don Enrique that
that the two brothers might bei of England, on condition
are the terms on which matters stood put forward." Such
What has since taken place ? Ishallo on the 28th of August.
Patches and consult not say • read
the official facts. At the
Nricds Madrid, at this
9Yfil that the Dupe 9f 5 cy
4/3"'" burg Tr9uld

.7:7n cm 3 r=rlilc, out qe

scene. It has leeen said in England lnat, n,J Lia.i zte,,,A M.Sc.
shamefully, and in France that he has done marvels. Gen-
tlemen, fk.now Count de Bresson, and I can say that he is
incapable of doing unworthy things; but he had no need on
this occasion to achieve wonders. Lie addressed himself to
M. Isturitz, one of the_ leaders of the Moderado party-, and
showed him that. Frio ce and Ent;land were agree t to -favour
the candidateehip ef i.: e eel.: , . .._ , ...e.e • et-t,. Queee
Christina was aware Beth of the refee ~I cf the Prince of Co-
burg and of the agreement of the t • o countries to make the
Queen marry one of her cousins. Her resolution was tsken.
In the night of August 28th a Council was called, and it was
, decided to marry the young Queen with Don Francisco, chief
1 of the Moderado party. This first result was excellent for us.
1 We had thrown out the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, and Don
Enrique, chief of the Progressists. So far all was well ; for
though I blame the policy which identifies itself with one of
the parties that divide a foreign country, I believe that when
such a policy is once entered on it must be followed up until
the triumph of the party is assured. Up to this point, there-
fore, all was in our favour, but there the success ought to
have stopped. I am, above all, a partizan of the policy of my
country, but I have no need to remind you that we should
remain within certain limits. There remained to effect the
second marriage, that of the Infanta Douse Luisa with the
Duke de Montpensier. The Moderados desired it in order
to exclude Don Enrique, chief of the Progressists, from the
second rank, as they had excluded him from the first. In
this desire we coincided. We all desire, as sincere partizans
ande dynasty, whatever may contribute to the happiness
distinction of the Royal Family.—(Hear.) The Infanta
Donna Luisa joins to qualities that every one knows, the
most illustrious birth. You were, then, right to desire
this marriage. We should have desired it ourselves; but on
the condition that it involved nothing contrary to the policy
of France ; but in the circumstances in which you concluded
it, it did not possess that character. It has been said that
the simultaneousness of the two marriages was an essential
condition of the first. I have searched everywhere for the
proof of this condition, and I have not been able to find it;
but I have found direct proofs of the contrary.—(Hear.) If'
Queen Christina, in presenting to you the two marriages at
the same time, had said (excuse the frivolity of the ex-
pression), " You must either take it or leave it," I should
have understood that we ought perhaps to have ceded. But
nothing of the kind took place. Everything attests that the
two marriages were determined on the condition that they
should be celebrated at the same time, if possible, or, to use
the expression of the contract, autant que faire se pourrait.
The official facts completely deny the ;contrary pretension.
It was in the night of the 28th of August that the first mar-
riage was settled, and in the morning of the 29th it was offi-
cially announced in the Madrid Gazette in these words:—
" I, Isabella 11., announce to Spain, that I have chosen for
my husband my cousin, the Prince Don Francisco d'Assis,
and I convoke the Cortes for September 14." Thus, on the
morning of the 29th of August the first marriage was a fait
accompli. it was your duty to use all your efforts to cause
the second marriage to be postponed. It is said that the
Cortes could have annulled the first marriage. But what
were the Cortes at that time? Out of 180 members there
were 100 Moderados, and was it to be expected that that
majority would have declared against the marriage which
placed their chief on the throne? As to the Progressists,
they were 20, and it was natural that , they should refrain
from pressing the conclusion of a marriage whieh excluded
their chief from the second rank, as from the first. It is
said—" But if there was nothing to fear from the Cortes,
out-of-door movements and insurrections were to be dreaded."
It is forgotten, then, that what excited the reclamations of
the press, and the excesses that had to be suppressed by
arbitrary means, was the person selected for the second
marriage.
M. de Lavergne rose, and said a few words which we found
it impossible to catch, from the uproar caused by M. Thiers
being interrupted.
M. Thiers—You do wrong to interrupt me ; this cause has
no need of such help as yours ; it is defended by the Minister
of Foreign Affairs,---(Laughter.) The first marriage, then,
was definitively settled by the proclamation of the Queen of
Spain, dated 29th August. The second marriage was to be
concluded so far as was possible. Those were the expressions
of the Hon. Minister in the Chamber of Peers. IN laat was
the situation ? The French Ministry was in presence of the
English Cabinet and the engagements of Eu. The Hon.
Minister pretends that he felt himself at liberty by the
attempts of the Whigs in favour of the Prince of Coburg.
But if that were the case he ought to have said to them—
"We are free." But the. common action was accepted
up to August 28. On September 1 the Hon. Minister re-
ceived a visit from the English Ambassador, and on that
gentleman inquiring it the marriages were to be celebrated
at the same time, he was told by M. Guizot—" No, not at
the same time."—(Laughter.) He, in fact, left in the Am-
bassador's
mind a firm conviction on the subject. The
Hon. Minister declares that the order to celebrate the
two marriages at the same ,time was only dispatched
on September the 11th. I may remark, en passent, that
this is a proof that you were still free to act on September
2d, on which day the English Ambassador communicated to
you a dispatch. At last came September 4th, and the Mi-
mster, who on the previous evening was in accord with the
English Cabinet, gives the order to celebrate the marriages
at the same time. You were, you say, conquered by circum-
stances. Well, on the sth f September you should have
sent for the Ambassador, and told him the truth ; but, in-
stead of that, time is allowed to run on, and the press of
Europe is permitted to learn the facts, and comment on them;
and then, when on the 25th the English Ambassador comes
to remonstrate, the Hon. Minister replies, " It is too late."
The Minister and the Ambassador then separate to remain in
the relations with which the Chamber is acquainted. Permit
me, gentlemen. a simple reminiscence. In 1840, when I sus-
tained a policy that for my part I found too bold, but which
I believed good for the honour of the country, a vic-
tim was required to expiate the backward step that was made
in the path in which I was engaged with others. Then it
Was said—not, it is true, in this tribune, but its another—
that I had deceived England. AU gentlemen, I have no
desire to recriminate, and I will not do so ; but I can say that
assuredly I did nothing like what has been done in this affair
of the Spamish marriages.—(Sensation.) In my convictions
the Government did well in bringing about a first and second
displeasure for England—in foiling her in any desire she
might have had for the Prince of Coburg, and in her pre•
ference of Don Enrique; but as to the third, which consisted
in celebrating the two marriages immediately, it ceded to a
movement of inconsiderate haste. I rejoice at the joys of
the Royal Family when not contrary to the interests of the
country; but in this case the duty of the Ministers clearly
was to arrest the accomplishment of that measure. I firmly
believe, that in effecting the two marriages together the
Government has done a thing either null or dangerous; and
When I shall have proved that to you, I shall examine if it
has not4one wrong to compromise our relations with Eng-
land, and if the moment was well chosen to compromise
them. ( Here the sitting was suspended for some minutes,
after which the Hon. Gentleman resumed his speech as fol-
lows);—I shall now examine in a threefold point of view
our relations on this question with Spain, with England,
and with the Continent. As to Spain, your policy is either
null or dangerous. You continually talk of the policy of
Louis XIV. Permit me to say a few words on that point.
What, to my thinking, our history clearly shows, is, that it is
the first interest of France to maintain herself constantly in
such relations with Spain as to prevent the latter from being
our enemy. You know that if whilst we fight on the Rhine
we have Spain as an enemy, we are as an army taken
between two fires. We had an example of that in 1814,
when Napoleon fought in Champagne with a handful of men,
but when the armies of Marshals Soult and Suchet were
fighting in the south. If the troops, of these generals had
been united to his. the face of things would probably have
been changed. We must then have a friend in Spain ; and,
in consequence, our policy towards her must be a friendly
one. - That is the first point. The second is this : '++ hen the
Spanish character is examined, there may be remarked in it
a great aversion to foreign influence. That feeling i derived
from the geographical position of Spain and from her his-
torical traditions. The Spaniards have always been subjected
to foreign dynasties—those of Germany and France. If we
wish to find a political friend in Spain, we must not pretend
to exercise any influence over the Spanish Government. The
Spaniards,• though tractable towards their rulers, are un-
governable with regard to foreigners. There must not be
permitted :to exist at Madrid a policy necessarily inimical to
us ; but beyond that no influence must be attempted in Spain.
The worstemeans, therefore, of exercising any influence in
Spain is by marriages. The political results of the policy of
Louis XIV. towards Spain were compromised by his having
founded them on his relationship, and it was precisely that re-
lationship, uniting as it did the two crowns, which after the
death of that monarch threw Spain into the German alliance.
It was not until a later period that.that Power, enlightened
by its true interests, attached itself more closely to us. It
again estranged itself to once more and definitively attach
itself to us in those latter days under the influence of the re-
volution. What ought to have been our conduct after the
Revolution of July? I declare loudly that our part is
pointed out to us by a common revolution. There was be-
tween France and Spain an evident community of interests;
each of the two nations has its Pretender; the Duke de
Bordeaux in one, and the Count de Montemolin in the
other. In the midst, also, of the desperate struggle between
the Moderados and the Progressists, when the treaty of the
15th of July was signed and war was spoken of, the most
violent of the Spanish journals changed their language In
the most apparent manner. When France was seen to be in
danger, and coalesced Europe threatened the French revolu-
tion, in all parts of Spain public opinion espoused the cause
of France., It was net only in Spain that this took place; it
was also in Belgium. The public mind in those countries
comprehended that a• common revolution created common
interest, and imposed common duties. Such was the way
in which France ought to exercise her influence over other
nations. I do not wish to recriminate, but I may
say that when Spain demanded your real support
you refused it ; you would not do anything
whatever to prevent counter-revolution. What, then,
do you hope for from the Spanish marriages T
It is not to-day, for the first time, that I say the position of a
French Prince in Spain is a difficult one, and I will give
you a proof of it. Queen Christina is not French ; and yet
go into Spain, and from Bayonne to Cadiz you will be told
that the greatest difficulty experienced by her is that she is
regarded as the agent of French 014. What, therefore,
would the Duke de Montpensier do in Spain? His supe-
riority even would be an obstacle; he would often be a
living impediment for his brother-in .law and for the Queen.
dared that you had only given France an additional Prin-
You thought, like me, since you recalled the Duke, and de-
cess. You have, therefore, done an act which is, politically
speaking, null. But you will perhaps say,
why then attack
it? It is because you have not only done an act which is
null, but because it is dangerous. Let us suppose, then,
that the Queen of Spain has no children—and God grant she
mayl Lave some—(Letughter)— what difficulties will you not
hve created! I need not remark here that Ido net admit
of embarrassment
which any
of the objections drawn from the treat *of Utr.cut—(Sen-
sation )---but it is not the . .l
the Queen having
price have you less true that, in the hypothesis of
andno children you have created great cause
English alliance, for
fore, done a thing compromised peace. You have, there-
Therefore,
taltitepinanii,ittotimilw:gehntitsiabitoitnh4 null.
_and dangerous, and what
alliance, was Liictilf,
yon
You
haveha paidsildn s 0 thei npyr iscaecoriffintehse.
you might have renounced that
alliance, and I
gheavoef gtitviiesnfeepir.oofs of it. My enemies have
meat.) i have always' b y ask, well chosen?—(Moves
let me, therefore, be allowed to been a partizan of the English
taken actvanta
at-
tacks to :lepent that such hasto render me unpopular;
ci avail myself of their
always been my predilection.
I do not seek yeinfiarity, I
; inc me betore the one as
I respectl. the opinions of my coun-
tryldoit"og both 1 ev
i,
i.
,rea s
the'
h ter
optehcecr,
,Thytt Kt
ill express my opinion
fr an kly. rt I obtein from the nation and front the King any
portion of their esteem, that, will be iiiitg ar.
, in:leu 'i' '" d coon -
recompense ; but I
could not, purchase that e.teetn by gv
act. It has been frequently said e
who for Manly years bought to embeeil France an•d) LngOU truly,
who
anllly,
to reproach us with not having Set sufficient value on the
English alliance 1" To that I might reply—" It is ve•well
,
I t eecii
for you, who have done ever) thing to preserve the English
lish
alliance, and have consented to so many sacrifices, to now
hold it so cheaply !" I am, I repeat, an advocate for the
English alliance, because it is useful to the progress of liberty
in the world, because it is the best guarantee for the in-
, dependence of states, and that is our cause—the cause of
the Opposition.--(Approbation on the Left.) When you see
Switzerland threatened in her liberty by three Powers, do
yo not feij that You: colTu &man are threatened ?—(lig.

newed srprohntion.) When you see the last remnants of

.
their liberty and independence. Ido not advise a policypolicy
J ells 11V:1S 14ulf
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
reply to
tvoi
theseries
parnodvotehaet conquestslve,n t
ef
steh
lea et
tnet
rp i rdeayw, r
atlvi
ce
madons.
not ha,l the right given us to be either propagandists or con-
querors; there has been no congress of Pilnitz against ut;
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. A 3 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
France holding in one hand a chart, on which should be
an image or an expression from the arts, I would represent
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 I
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 rivaly between France and
England; there are serious difficulties no doubt in the way ;
but I Srmly 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 preferenee 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 bad
been told that Cracow had nothing to fear. You believed, in
fact, what you were told.—(Laughter.) But when the
Whip told you that they did not desire a Coburg marriage
for England, you did not believe them; and yet, I repeat,
you believed what the three Powers said when they told_ you
that they entertained no designs against Cracow. Nay,
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 Hon.
Deputy here entered into an explanation of the state of Eu-
rope, and, referring to Rome, rendered justice to the efforts of
the Pope to reform the Roman States. Lately (he con-
tinued), the people cried from behind the Pope, " Courage,
Holy Father ! Courage 1" and I also cry in the name of
France, which is calumniated at. Rome, " Courage, Holy
Fat her 1 Courage r' 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 mars iage severed the union of France and Eng and?
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 represent- the Whigs is, permit me to
use the expression, odious—(lnterruption)—disagreeable, if
you 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.
FEIBRUARY 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 fully 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 1
candidates ; he did not even disapprove at bottom of the
marriage of the Duke de Montpensier with 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 and Europe. There was
no necessity, therefore, according to M. Tillers, to conclude
t accusation,aii iwdsrt
saan tsshmttoerhf marked
rnsm strong
erdnni
andbnevbuee
by honourable
Irseyos
hiwftodyi
shallidt:
ffohof
ouoei
rnnrrueelnba
rrhtisoeaoasv.
reproach
htoenuar I:lmdit shallpuniyorgcnoset.
:::
proved
ie.
(dnnsxatt aroweotmahn:igao:netlaehyt
es
ttia!rwe:i
suet'
the second marriage immediately; and there was a want of
fairnessddtcphoeor esnue eredbeeiul
sneecwd
lahciemd. in
From that
last,a cowmhepnariLsoonrdarAosbeerdtheeen
sowhiasti(imn
In order to judge of that necessity. it is necessary to have a
wpoewreerp, and in July, when Lord Palmerston had suc-
ceededof 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 complete!.
admit this parity in the two situations. But in practice and
tact 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 thefollowing
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 Cu-
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 islets
so clear and so positive? A letter to the Duke de Sotomayor
of the 42d 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 math 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
chiefs of party in England, from the Tories to the Radicals
-strum Lord George Bentinck to Mr. Roebuck—all employ
the same language, alt express the same desire for friendlx
relations and good intelligence between France and England.
_-(hear, hear.) Nor do 1 forget more than another that in
difficult times the Whigs were the true friends of France.
I have heard more than once the most important members of
the NN his;party express their regret that the two dissensions
between France and England-1836 and 1840—broke out
tust not di-regrd facts. New, on the
sincere, b ut yet we ii
Lord P
to power of a niers
to
I tai,
it was impossible for
under a Whig Cabinet. lam certain that th ,t regret was
return
of
ticuiarly his policy towards France, was
Lord Aberdeen, par
et kne,,, of condescension, of con-
accused in England of fe.
nv, not to retnemeer that during five yearstl policy
even niv portfolio extract of the
nioonco• 1 have 4 jiving that interval, and I
speeches that svere .deliver
if. beceseary. I think I should
could quote them to 0
rill us offensive words), but se fac
rets-
not to feel dish mt. (k 1
En kaend would be changed. It
serve, to see the iuqcY. '
have been negligent
d I was so. S , much for
iinni had not ieintonbered the,
b 4 reserved, an
was my duty o
the
general
facts.
' ill reduce those facts to two ;
mend still greater reserve.
•kJ?
he silence so long maintained
the dispatch of July.l9, an
What did that dispatch con-
before replying to my letter;
named, and why was he
min ? In it the Prince of Churg is
aarticutut , ones soon occurred to com
objections to
mentioned if he had no chance
contains the declaration that s.England bad n
lassie
snake to any of the candidate's fiallfed but not a word
to be
lof Rance—nor a suggestion to Spain on the policy
Ws difference between
pursued towards us. There is, than, t 0 The dispatch
of success?