The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-04 00:00:00

S 4r-
FEBRUARY 4) 1847.

marriage of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta
had been settled at the same time. The engagement
signed on that subject by M. Isturiz and M. Bresson, on
the 28th of Augcist, the very day when the Queen's mar-
riage with the Duke of Cadiz was announced, is a pal
pable proof of that intimate and necessary connexion of
the two marriages, of which Lord Palmerston takes no
account, though it was the determinative cause, and is
the essential character of the event.
V. " M. Guizot admits," says Lord Palmerston (para-
graph 8 and 9, " the fact of the engagement at the
Chateau d'Eu, but he does not state its substance cor-
rectly.
" It was not that the marriage of the Duke de Mont-
pensier to the Infanta should be delayed until the Queen
of Spain should have been married, and should have had
a child ; it was, that that marriage should not taka place
until the Queen of Spain should have been- married, and
until the birth of children by her marriage should have
so far secured a direct succession to the throne of Spain,
as to divest the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier to
the Infanta of a political character ; add if her Majesty's
Government are:not much misinformed, even this assur-
ance was not accepted as entirely satisfactory, but as
calculated to render the projected marriage less objet
tionable than it would otherwise have been."
The engagement taken at the Chateau d'Eu has been
understood on both sides in this sense, that when the
Queen of Spain should have been married, and should
have had children, the marriage of the Infanta would
be divested of a political character. The phrase "should
have had children," is a general expression, which being
used beforehand, as it was in that case, contains no spe-
cification of number as to the children, and applies as
well to one as to several children. It was the fact of the
marriage of the Queen, and a posterity issued from that
marriage, which was to divest, and which really divested,-
Jim marriage of the Infanta of its political character. If
any idea of number had been attached to the word
children, that number should have been specified ; it
would have been necessary to determine how many
children were requisite to divest the marriage of the In-
fanta of its political character—a question which would,
I think, be as embarrassing to Lord Palmerston as it
would be tome.

VI. " Her Majesty's present Government," says
Lord Palmerston (paragraph 11), " are unable either to
admit or to deny that any such engagement was taken
by their predecessors ; but I will assume, for the sake of
argument, that it was ; and then I would ask why,
since the condition required by the French Government
has been fulfilled, and since the promise of the British
Government hase been kept, why has the engagement of
the Chateau d'Eu been broken ?"

Luid Plltnerston here again forgets that if the mar-
riege of thi Queen of Spain with a descendant of Philip
V. w•as decided upon on the 28th of August last, it is
because the marriage of the Infanta with the Duke de
Ntontpensier was agreed upon and settled at the same
Lima.

VII. " M. Guizot," says Lord Palmerston (para-
graph 12), " endeavours to establish a contrast between
the conduct of her Majesty's late and that of her Ma-
j• sty's present Government in regard to this matter ;
but there is no just ground for such a distinction, for
both Governments have pursued in this matter the
same course ; both Governments have held exactly the
same language as is the pretensions put forward by the
French Government to compel the Queen of Spain to
marry none but a descendant of Philip V.; both Govern-
ments have been of opinion that it would be most
prudent for the Queen to marry a Spanish Prince, and
both agreed in their selection of the Prince whom they
ventured to recommend; while neither her Majesty's late
nor her Majesty's present Government have, at any time,
given any encouragement or support whatever to the
choice which the Spanish Court wished to make of Prince
Leopold of Saxe Coburg. Therefore the memorandum
of the 27th of February is in no degree inconvenient to
her Majesty's Government; and could not, even if com-
municated in proper time, have afforded the slightest
justification for the departure from the engagements of
the Chateau d'Eu."

at rhrey
good
de
faith b t t
toa d
de-
claree
The French Government never had the pretension to
sccoemnpdeabinetfthooerefiCliPaanhedileinwphVoaft. Sitpßsaupintoliitct:h-awmdould be in such and
such a contingency. It might as well be said that the
British Government had the pretension to compel the
Queen of Spain not to marry a French Prince. We will
make use of no such expressions, which are as contrary
to the truth of facts as to propriety. Every Government
has a right to follow that policy which is in accordance
with the legitimate interests of its country. It is what
we have done in this case, and the British Government
has done the same. We make no reproach to them for
having taken such a course; but we distinctly repudiate
the reproach which they address to us on that same
ground.

As to the assertion, that her Britannic Majesty's late
and her Britannic Majesty's present Government have
pursued, in this matter, the same course, and held the
same language, I am obliged again to bring in juxta-
position a few plain facts and passages which will show
if there is any ground for such an assertion.
On the 28th of May, Lord Aberdeen blamed Mr.
Bulwer for having approved of the step taken by the
Spanish Government with a view to the marriage of the
Queen with Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and re-
proved him for having departed in that respect from
the instructions which he had received. On the l2th of
July, Lord Palmerston, giving his instructions to Mr.
Bulwer, pointed out to him " Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg and the two sons of Don Francisco de Paula,"
as the only candidates for the hand of the Queen ; add-
htahvoeseontlhyreteo ceaxnpdviedsas ttehseihresrinelNeivae-
Yanbde
fallh a p up
ipnoens
st hoef otnhee wQhnoe
emn
ato promote tote welfare of the Spanish nation."
jimwne isgostshyt tshlhiaGkatteoltly‘h‘e erbtnoecnahts;e'
eicnceutenr em tahye
W ere those instructions of Lord Palmerston similar
to the previolis instructions of Lord Aberdeen? Did
they point out none but the same candidates?
And when one single candidate, the Infant Don En-
rique,of
June, was
tomentioned,theD kLeonrfd
u Aberdeen did write, on the
candidate or English preference, to point out the Infant
Don Enrique as the prince who appeared to them most
eligible, because the most likely to prove acceptable to
the people of Spain." Now, what did Lord Palmerston,
in bis turn, write to Lord Normanby as being the sub-
stance of his recent instructions to Ml. Bulwer ? It is
the opinion of her Majesty's Government that " Don
Enrique i the only Spanish prince who is fit, by his
personal qualities, to become the husband of the Queen
of Spain."

Is that recommending the Infant Don Enrique, as
Lord Aberdeen did recommend him, and holding, with
regard to him, the same language ?
MIL "M. Guizot again reverts," says Lord Pal-
merston (paragraph 13), " to my despatch of the 19th
of July to Mr. Buln•er, and states that, whatever may
have been my intention, the mere order in which the
name of the Prince of Coburg was mentioned in tl►al
dispatch must have had the effect of an indirect commu-
nication in his favour. But M. Guizot forgets that the
dispatch was a personal instruction to Mr. Bulwer ; that
it was not destined to be communicated to the Spanish
Government; and that it never was communicated to
that Government by him ; and that in the very outset
of that dispatch I referred Mr. Bulwer to a communi-
cation which he had received from my predecessor, in
which a Spanish Prince was named as the candidate who
appeared to the British Government to be the most eli-
gible, and the most likely to prove acceptable to the
people of Spain."
It is not the mere order in which the name of the
Prince of Coburg was mentioned in the dispatch of the
19th of July which caused me to say that that dispatch
must have had the effect of an indirect recommenda-
tion in his favour ; and it is the formal text of the
two paragraphs already quoted, and which I must quote
again

The candidates for the hand of the Queen of Spain
are reduced to three ; namely, the Prince Leopold of
Saxe Coburg, and the two sons of Don Francisco de
Paula. I omit Count Trapani and Count Montemolin,
as there appears to be no chance of the choice falling
upon either of them."

There was a chance, then, of the choice falling upon
Prince Leopold of Coburg , or else why should not Lord
Pal►nerston have omitted him as well as Count Trapani
and Count Montemolin ?

After having himself thus established that there was
a chance for the Priuco of Coburg, Lord Palmerston
adds :

"As between the three candidates above-mentioned,
her Majesty's Government have only to express their
sincere wish that the choice may fall upon the one who
may be most likely to secure the happiness of the
Queen, and to promote the welfare of the Spanish
nation."

There is, assuredly, in these two paragraphs, some-
thing else besides the mere order in which the name
of the Prince Leopold of Coburg is mentioned, although
I do not consider this as an indifferent circumstance.
It is of little consequence whether the dispatch of the
19th of July was a personal instruction to Mr. Bulwer,
not destined to be communicated to the Spanish Govern-
went. To that instruction Mr. Bulwer was, undoubtedly
to conform his conduct and language. The views and
intentions contained in the dispatch were to be mani-
fested through the acts and words of the Minister to
whom it was addressed. We must have looked to the
things themselves, and not merely to the form of the
communications and influences.
In reminding us that he referred Mr. Bulwer to an in-
struction which he had received from his predecessor,
that is to say, to the dispatch addressed on the 22d of
June, by Lord Aberdeen, to the Duke of Sotomayor,
Lord Palmerston forgets that that dispatch does not
mention any other candidate for the hand of the Queen
of Spain besides the Infant Don Enrique, who appears,
says Lod Aberdeen, to be the most eligible ; whereas
the dispatch of the 19th of July mentions three candi-
dates—the Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and the o
tw
sons of Don Francisco de Paula, whom Lord Palmer-
ston represents as equally eligible, and equally acceptable
to the British Government.
IX. "M. Guizot," says Lord Palmerston (paragraphs
16, 16, and 17) " points out that in a passage in my
;spat,h of the 31st of October, in which there is a
+ion 1,,a1 Lis previ-me d'a^ateb of the sth of
Ivoids which were not in his dis-
-n placed between inverted commas. This
correct. The passage in question in
31st of October, begins with a

Toth.
)otot,er,
patch have be,
remark is prfeet*.,
my dispatch of t'ga

PRICE SD.

• verbal quotation, and ends with a verbal quotation; but
contains in the middle a sentence which is not a verbal
quotation, but is the substance of a preceding passage in
M. Guizot's despatch from which I was quoting ; and
the inverted commas are inadvertantly carried on so as
to include that middle sentence. The inverted commas
ought to stop at the words state of things,' and should
not begin again till the words, ' consequently the French
Government resorted at Madrid.'
" I have to instruct your Excellency to correct this
error of punctuation in the original dispatch in
the archives of your embassy e and perhaps
M. Guizot will have the goodness to do the
same by the copy which was delivered to. him.
" But this correction in the pundtuation of the pas-
sage makes no difference whatever in the argument, and
does not in the-slightest degree affect the contradiction
which it was the object of that passage in my dispatch to
point out. The contradiction consists in this ; that M.
Guizot's dispatch of the sth of October states, in one
passage, that the Spanish Court was *s6 bent upon one
arrangement that, if not opposed by the British Govern-
ment that arrangement-was likely, by a simple act of
laisser-aller, to have inevitably taken place ; and then,
in another passage, it says that the manner in which a
different arrangement was effected was by simply offer.
ing that different arrangement to the free choice and
independent will of the very same Court."
I would not insist upon the erroneous quotation al-
luded to in thOse paragraphs, and the error of which Lord
Palmerston acknowledges, if he did not maintain that
that error is immaterial, and that the sentence which he
quoted as being mine (though it was not mine) was " the
substance of a preceding passage in my dispatch of the
sth of October." I cannot recognise my ideas in the
substance of them, as giyen by Lord Palmerston, any
more thati—l reCognised my words in his quotation of
them. I never thought or said that " the Spanish court
was so bent upon the Coburg alliance that, if not op-
posed by the British Government, that arrangement was
likely, by a simple act of laisser-aller, to have inevitably
taken place." I thought and said, that if, on the one
hand, the King's Government had persisted in not ac
ceding to the wishes of the Spanish Government for the
marriage either of the Queen or of the Infanta with the
Duke de Montpensier, while on the other hand the Bri-
tish Government accepted, were only by a simple act of
laisser-aller, the Coburg combination, this latter combina-
tion would probably have taken place. I added that,
such being the state of things, the King's Government
had altered its course, and offered a different arrange-
ment to Queen Isabella and her Government. Such is

the exact substance of what I said in that part of my
dispatch of the sth of October, and that statement differs
materially from that which Lord Palmerston persists in,
while at the same time he acknowledges the error in his
quotation.

- X. ";ti. Guizot acknowledges," says Lord Palmers-
ton (paragraph 18), " that it was from Lord Aberdeen
that he received the first information of the overture
made in May last by the Court of Madrid to the Duke
of Saxe Coburg. But he states that, as the communi-
cation from Lord Aberdeen was confidential, lie did not
think himself at liberty, without Lord Aberdeen's per-
mission, to say from whom it came. This might be a
reason fur not mentioning the circumstances at all, but
surely it was no reason for mentioning it in such a way
as to give those who might be unacquainted with the
facts an erroneous impression as to the course of the
transaction."

I never attempted to give an erroneous impression as
to the first source of the information which I had re-
ceived on the subject of the overture made by the Court
of Madrid to the Duke of Saxe Coburg. I merely ab-
stained from mentioning that source so long as I thought
that it could not be done with a due regard to right and
propriety ; and the surprise which I expressed was at
the course which the British Minister at Madrid had
adopted contrary to his instructions.
XI. "M. Guizot denies," says Lord Palmerston
(paragraph 19), " that the Marquis of Miraflores was
sent to Paris in July last on a mission, on the subject of
the marriage of the Queen of Spain." And after
on that subject a passage from my dispatch of the 22d of
November last, he adds:—" Notwithstanding this ap-
parently positive contradiction, her Majesty's Govern-
ment must still persist in the assertion, in regard to
this matter, which was contained in my former dispatch.
Her Majesty's Government consider themselves to have
good ground for asserting that the Marquis of Mira-
fibres was sent to Paris in July for the above mentioned
purpose ; and though her Majesty's Government do
not pretend to have a knowledge of all the communica-
tions which, durirg the two months which he spent at
Paris, may have passed between him and those to whom
he was sent, yet her Majesty's Government do happen
to know that, on the evening of the 19th of July, a day
or two afte'r his arrival in Paris, he had an audience at
Neuilly, and that, at that audience, he did, though inef-
fectually, endeavour to accomplish the purpose of his
mission. If the Marquis had succeeded in overcoming
at Paris the objections there felt to the selection of the
Prince of Coburg, he was to have gone on to London to
solicit the co-operation of her Majesty's Government."
I persist in thinking that Lord Palmerston has been
misincormed as to the mission with which the Marquis
of Miraflores was, he says, intrusted in the month of
July last, and as to what passed or was said on that
occasion, either at Paris or even at Neuilly.
XII. In the 22d and ten following paragraphs, Lord
Palmerston resumes and discusses anew the question of
the Treaty of Utrecht. I there find again the same
ideas, the same mistakes with regard to the sense and
consequences of that treaty, which I hai;e already com-
batted. Ido not think it necessary to begin that discus-
sion over again, and I shall confine myself to a few
short remarks upon those assertions of Lord Palmerston
which seem to involve, in a greater degree, the question
in confusion and error,

In his despatch of. the 22d of September, it was
against the very marriage of the Duke de Montpensier
with the Infanta that Lord Palmerston formally pro-
tested, on the ground of the treaty of Utrecht. Ile now
acknowledges that the treaty of -Utrecht does not pro-
hibit such a marriage, but be contends that the descend-
ants issuing from it would, by virtue of that treaty, be
excluded from the throne of Spain ; an assertion which
he says I have not denied.
Now, I formally denied it. I admitted that, accord.
ing to the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, and of the
renunciations of 1712, the descendants of the Duke of
Orleans could not, in case the posterity of Philip V.
should become extinct, put forth, on their lineal right,
any claim to the throne of Spain. But I maintained that
the descendants of Philip V. could not, in consequence
of marriage with princes or princesses issued from lines
which had renounced their rights, lose their own per-
sonal rights, the rights of their own line, to the throne
of Spain. I showed that such were the primitive mean-
ing and the constant interpretation of the treaty of
Utrecht. I quoted several instances in proof of that in-
terpretation, especially Ferdinand VII. and Isabella 11.,
King and Queen of Spain, as descendants from Philip
V., though they were, through their mother and grand-
mother, direct descendants of Louis XV. I asked Lord
Palmerston if he ever thought of disputing the title of
Ferdinand VIL or Isabella II.? To that example he
gives no answer.

The object of the Treaty of Utrecht was, as I said, to
prevent the union of the two crowns of France and
Spain upon one head. Should it happen, therefore, at
any future time, as Lord Palmerston hypothetically
suggests it, that the rights to both crowns should be
united in one prince, I have no hesitation in acknow-
ledging that he could not be invested with both those
crowns. But, so long as the two lines of the Bourbons
of France and the Bourbons of Spain remain in exist-
ence intermarriage between them cannot have that
effect, that the private rights of one of those lines should
be destroyed by the renunciation which the other line
has once made of its own rights. People may renounce
for themselves and their descendants the rights which
they possess and which they would transmit to them.
But that they should renounce for their descendants
rights which they do not possess and cannot transmit tu
them, is a principle not to be admitted. Lord Palmer-
ston constantly overlooks that distinction between the
royal lines and the rights belonging to each of them,
and which remain always distinct. Hence the erroneous
inferences which he draws from the Treats' of Utrecht,
and which would materially affect that very treaty, and
the balance of European power which has been founded
by it.
XIII. " M. Guiaot," says Lord Palmerston (paragraph
33, and seq.), "in the concluding part of his dispatch,
says that he desires to bring back the controversy
within its legitimate and constitutional limits; that, in
my dispatch of the 31st of October, I introduced a
name which cught never to have appeared in this dis-
cussion; that his surprise at this was deep, that his sense
of duty commanded him to express it strongly, and to
remind me that the responsibility of the policy of the
King's Government in this matter belongs entirely to
himself alone."

It is impossible for me to allow this passage to pass
without a reply. And Lord Palmerston quotes three
passages from my dispatch of the sth of October, in
which the King's name is to be found.
I was not prepared, I must own, for such an answer
and recrimination. I never thought that the name of
the royal person ever could or ought to be pro-
nounced, in any way, in a diplomatic correspondence.
How could I have entertained such an idea, in
contradiction with such frequent facts, when I had,
without making any remark on the subject, met with
the King's name in Lord Palmerston's dispatch of the
22d of September,—when I had myself made use of it
several times in my dispatch of the sth of October, as
Lord Palmerston points out in quoting three extracts
from that dispatch? What I thought, and must abso-
lutely persist in thinking, is that the royal person never
ought to be mentioned for the purpose of attack, or
with reference no acts which are attacked.
in "The
France, lii n g
can do no wrong," is, in England as well as
the fundamental principle of constitutional monarchy.
It is that principle which I have appealed to when Lord
Palmerston seemed to me to have forgotten it, and he
actually forgot it on several occasions.
mention two instances. I will merely

Ist. In his dispatch of the 31st of October, after men-
tioning the engagement taken at Eu, in September 1845,
" by his Majesty the King of the French and by his Mi-
nister," Lord Palmerston says, that the purpose of the
memortndum of the 27th of February, 1846, was " that
the King of the French would hold himself free from the
engagements he had taken as to the marriage of the
Queen and of the Infanta, and would deem himself at
liberty to ask the hand, either of the one or of the other,