The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-28 00:00:00

Guizot i
es of
fe n
Julyt
hieesclthat
et
ntahnoe
fa Marquisspain. mission, of
on
the sentHM marriage
aoGr
sPruai
s ,
King
cpn :
na‘ i
t.
igsA
Paris
ecavwobnoryi
didt
devoid
nhohpgefi
Prince
i anct
locl
oeGuf
Leopold
ut
evo
noes
odpdr f
Government
lmtsdi
foundation.
onana;
tl
Spain,
Saxe
Duringet
hr
to sattco noo,
bbtuth
tterhhegi3neei
Mirafloresa eaabjecwta
ofs
Marquis of Miraflores was sent, last summer, on •
tTfmhr
haiesimss(
li paunstesbeeetnrot
Isabellai
should make no opposition to the marriage of
two months that M. de Miraflores passed at Paris, he
made no communication and no overture to the King's
Government, and he did not address to me a single word
to the effect mentioned by Lord Palmerston."
Notwithstanding this apparently positive contradic-
tion, her Majesty's Government 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 grounds for asserting,
that the Marquis of Miraflores was sent to Paris in July
for the above-mentioned purpose; and though her Ma.
jesty's Government do not pretend to have a knowledge
of all the communications which, during the two months
which he spent in Paris, may have passed between him
and those to him he was sent, yet her Majesty's Govern-
ment do happen to know that on the evening of the 19th
of July, a day or two after his arrival at Paris, he had
an audience at Neuilly, and that at that audience he did,
though ineffectually, endeavour to accomplish the pur-
pose of his mission. If the Marquis had succeeded in
overcoming at Paris the objections there felt to the se-
lection of the Prince of Coburg, he was to have gone on
to London, to solicit the co operation of his Majesty's
Government.
M. Guizot adverts to the treaty of Utrecht, and con-
tends that, although that treaty prevents the union of
the crowns of France and Spain upon one head, it does
not interdict marriages between the royal houses of
France and Spain. And he again quotes certain cases
of such marriages in the eighteenth century, in proof of
his assertion. But M. Guizot does not deal at all with
the position laid down by her Majesty's Government ;
he asserts that which her Majesty's Government have
never denied, but he does not deny that which her Ma-
jesty's Government have asserted. He says that the
treaty of Utrecht does not interdict certain marriages,
bnt he does not deny that the descendants of the Duke
of Orleans are excluded from the throne of Spain.
The position laid down by her Majesty's Government
is plain, simple, and incontrovertible. It is this :—The
Duke of Orleans, of 1712, renounced for himself and
all his descendants all claim or right to succeed to the
throne of Spain, and declared himself and his descend-
ants incapable of and excluded from such succession,
whatever might be the way (and this includes tkway of
marriage), in which the succession might decisive upon
their line. That renunciation was embodied in the
treaty of Utrecht, and thereby was made binding on
France, and became pa rt of the public law of Europe,
and it was, moreover, incorporated in the law both of
France and of Spain.
descendants of the Duke of Orleans of 1712 ; and the
Duke of Montpensier and his children ard° therefore tan-
The Duke of Montpensier is, and his children will be,
capable of succeeding to the throne of Spain, "wh
de-
volve upon them."
ty's Government. It
This is the position of her Males
letter ef treaties
ever may be the way in which that succession may t-
is founded upon the plain and positive
none of these cases
sieges which took place a century ago; !
of the present
and of laws: and it cannot be shake
were similar to that which is the subject
French prince
discussion, for in none of them did a
Sp sin.
marry the heir presumptive to the crown of
both
uoting mar-
In all these cases the Salic law was in existence,
Maria
were
Theresa married the Dauphin, in 1745, there w
seve-
ral male heirs to the crown of Spain.
in France and in Spain. and when the Infanta
But M. Guizot, between the doctrines which he
laid down, and the examples which he has q
uoted,
seems to have involved himself in difficulties, from which
it is not easy for him to escape. lie
admits
that the
n of the
has
treaty of Utrecht absolutely prevents the unio
noted,
but he asserts, that in all the cases which he had
g
crowns of France and Spain uon one and the same heads
the Spanish Infantas, when they married French princes
Infanta
the crown of Spain: and he further says. that the
the
who, in 1745,married
brought with them an eventual, but a positive right_ to
Maria Theresa Antoinette,
Spanish crown.
which might
Now, supposing that to have happened
ersons who
Dauphin, son of Louis XV. was one of the heirs, to the
have come to pass, namely, that all the p. .
stood before that Infanta, in regard
died during her
had
succession to the crown of Spain. the Dauphin,
lifetime ; and supposing that her husband,
could she have
had succeeded to the crown cf France,
f both countries?
been at one and the same time Queen n she had one
And if, under both those circumstances,d
that son have
only child, and that child a son, could _
? bvious
become Ring both of France and Spain m.
f Guizot's cons
that in such a case, one or other 0
and that either
to ir right of
flicting doctrines must have given a, 4,
on one and the
against the union of the two crowns
or else the
throng
same head must have been broken
sion
to the crown
positive though eventual right of sweets a
Spanish Infanta
of Spain, which M. Guizot asserts that
a French prince,
the prohibition which the treaty wety Utrecht contains
brings with her in a marriage with
must have been given up.
and so, in the present
hibition must have prevailed,
tend that the stipu-
case, her Majesty's Government
ech treaty of Utrecht are
lations and renunciations of
lthan any personal claims.
stronger and more powerful
of the cases quoted by
But, as I have said,tantbat w
hich is now under dis-
But it is obvious that in such a case the treaty of pro-
iPitr had been so, they would have
mend,o
even
for the purpose for which they are
been unavailing
though precedents may serve for the in-
quoted; becaufsdoubtful and ambiguous stipulations, they
terpretation o
aside stipulations which, like those of
never can setu
Utrecht, are clear, positive, and incapable
tr
the treaty of M. Gt were sim a
pea union
imaymnoroet ctlhoastee.anntldana
cannot bar the treaty rights of
Govern-
meats in the last century
the present day. But if there did r
Governments
in the Governments of France and of Spain,Pe-
vail between th
of being misunderstood; and the omissions of Govern-
intimatecircumstancef he
with the spirit and int '
quotedrMon
y
than was consistent
ded in article
lA, as recor 2 of the treaty
ascribed to the m
as tending to affe.ct inju
ay not those historical betweendtirlerai
of est examples
by M. Guizot; an
useful illustrations
serve, therefore. as
which, in my dispatch
the soundness
of the principle uP°ated that her Majesty's of the 22d
England a-
: stated
ne marriage of e Government
tnigesthofe
ulatsrtecoentnudrys,
protested aga.nst t
am, uke of Mont-
of be,
September
tae gmrbeeart, dle g rde ea ;13
pension to the bra
in Europe, by
the balance of no
• • over
between the G: establishing too in.
timate a connexion Governments (7f. France
Guizot
and Spain? And M.hundred most assuredly does not
forget that, in the years which preceded the
treaty of Utrecht, twice did
_IL happen that a Spanish
sled to a t rench Prince, and that on
each of these occasions t a principle of European
balance was acknowledged by formal and b •
pu hely re-
corded acts.
that by the treat
M. Guizot says, . aty of Utrecht all par-
ties abated somewhat of the pretensions which they had
insisted upon at the commencement of the war, to which
that treaty put an end. _
This statement is no doubt true, but it has no bear-
ing on the present discussion, Her Majesty's Govern-
ment aro now renewing the pretensions which were
abandoned by Great Britain by the treaties of Utrecht
they are only claiming the benefit of the securities which
were given in those treaties by France and by Spain.
M. Guizot says that England and her allies acknow-
ledged by those treaties the establishment f branch
of the house of Bourbon upon theo a
throne of Spain.
Her Majesty's Government do not
seekto revoke that
acknowledgment. But M. Guizot ad • mits that by those
treaties Louis XIV. consented to the complete separa-
tion of the rights of the royal houses of France and
Spain ; and it is on the maintenance of that complete
separation that her Majesty's Government insist.
It is on "the definite conditions of that peace" that
her Majesty's Government, in this discussion, have
taken their stand, and it is " the letter and the spirit"
of that treaty of which they deem themselves entitled
to claim the faithful observance.
M. Guizot, in the concluding part of his dispatch,