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

No. 10,950. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING SU N, JANUARY 15, 1847.

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

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

S. SMILES, Secretary.

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

1 RAVESEND STAR and BLACKWALL
PACKETS.
Boat and Rail Included ha One Payment, avoiding the danger
and delay of the Pool.
Prom the Brunswick Wharf, Blackwall, at 9%, 1016, 1,3, 4, and
5. Sundays, at 9%, 11, 1%, 4, and 5. The Trains starting one quar-
ter of an hour before eaoh of these times.
'New Terrace Pier, Gravesend, at 7%, 8%, 9%, 11%, 1,3, and
5. Sundays, at 8%, 11%, 1,3, and 5.
N.B.—No other packets call at the Grays or Greenhithe Piers.
Star Office, Gravesend, Dec. 28, 1846.

NEW VOLUME OF MR. JAMES'S WORKS.
Just published, in medium live., price Ss. cloth, with finely engraved
Frontispiece,
THE KING'S HIGHWAY;
BEING TILE
ELEVENTH VOLUME of the Works of G. P. R. JAMES, Esq.
*** The previous volumes (each complete in itself) may be had
separately ; contents—
' Vol. VI. Henry of Guise.
VII. Morley Ernstein.
VIII. The Robber.
IX. Darnley ; and
X. The Brigand.
and Co., G 5, Corhhill.

Vol. I. The Gipsy.
11. Mary of Burgundy.
111. The Huguenots.
IV. One in a Thousand.
V. Philip Augustus.
London : Smith, Eldi

Just published, post dye., cloth, 75.,
ON NEAR SIGHT, AGED SIGHT, AND
IMPAIRED VISION : with Observations on the Use of
Glasses. By W, WHITE COOPER, F.R.C.S., Senior Surgeon to
the North London Ophthalmic Institution.
" Truly practical, and consequently truly valuable, we recom-
mend this volume to all eyes. There is nothing connected with the
sight upon which its advice is not most significant and valuable.
Founded on the most thorough scientific knowledge of his subject,
Mr. Cooper goes intd- details of 'forms to Improve the vision, to
choose glasses, and adopt every course which can strengthen or pre-
serve the most precious of our senses."—Literary Gazette.
London: John Churchill, Princes•street, Soho.

ELEGANT AND USEFUL GIFT BOOK—A PICTURE OF
GERMAN HOME LIFE—WITH A VALUABLE COLLEC-
TION OF ENTIRELY ORIGINAL KNITTING PATTERNS.
Dedicated, by permission to her ,Royal Highness the Duchess of
GLOUCESTER.
Now ready, in 1 vol. Bvo., full gilt cloth, illustrated with Engravings,
price 10s. 6d.,
THE GERMAN CHRISTMAS EVE.
Edited by Mrs. ALFRED MONTGOMERY. Being a Pic-
ture of Home Life in Germany. With Instructions for, and Illustra-
tions of One Hundred beautiful and Original PATTERNS for KNIT,
TING. Translated from the German of Madame A. FLOUR.
London George C. Comes, 5, Halkin-street West, Belgrave-squaro.

OUGL AS JERROLD'S WEEKLY NE WS-
PAPER ENLARGED, with Various New Features, ou the
23d January, to 32 Pages or 9G Columns. Price, as heretofore, Six-
pence. Order of all Newsmen, Town or Country, of whom fuller
prospectuses may be obtained.

DOUGLAS JERROLD'S WEEKLY NEWS-
PAPER, ENLARGED, with Various New Features, to the
utmost Limit allowed by the Stamp Law, on the 23d January.
Price, as heretofore, Sixpence. Orders of all Newsmen, Town or
Country, of whom detailed prospectuses may be had.

DOUGLAS JERROLD'S WEEKLY NEWS-
PARER.
ENLARGEMENT OF ONE-THIRD, ON THE MEETING OF
PARLIAMENT.- In order to give ampler space for all the News
of the Week, including The Debates in Parliament—The Miscellane-
ous Occurrences—Law and Police Reports—Public Meetings—Foreign
Intelligence—Literature—Correspondence—as well as for Original
and various New Serial Articles, the Proprietor has determined to
enlarge the Paper to the utmost limit allowed by the Stamp Law,
and to ADD ONE-THIRD, or TWENTY-FOUR COLUMNS,
making in the whole THIRTY-TWO PAGES, or NINETY-SIX
COLUMNS, thus rendering it equal to the Fullest and Largest News-
paper in the extent and variety of its News of the Week, and still
retaining the large space heretofore devoted to Original Articles by
the Editor, and his Eminent Literary Colleagues. Price (as here-
tofore) SIXPENCE.

Order of all Newsmen, Town or Country, from whom detailed
•
Prospectuses can be had.

THE CIGAR WAREHOUSES, LONDON.
Fine Foreign Cigars of all Makers, 17s. Gd., 18s. Gd., 209., and
21s. per lb. ; Government Manillas Cheroots, 17s. per lb.. British
made, from the finest tobaccos imported, Cheroots, Gs; Mexicans,
7s. Gd. per lb. ; Cuba and llavannah Cigars. 7s. and 7s. Gd. per lb. ;
Silvas and Cabanas, Bs. Gd. per lb. ; Principes, Lopez Recompendzas,
Esparteros, Dos Amigos, and Estrellos, 9s. Gd. per lb., warranted first
quality. The Union Cigar, equal to any foreign, 12s. Gd. per lb.
Single pounds may be had. Messrs. Tosswill and Co., Commission
Merchants, Importers, and Manufacturers, have a large stock of
the above, well worth the attention of large buyers. Warehouses,
and 7, Pudding-lane, Eastcheap, three doors from Gracechurch-
street and King William-street, City.

DAVIES'S CANDLES, Qd. per lb. ; Genuine
Sperm, la. 9th ; Yellow Soap, 485., 545., and 60s. per I l2lbs. ;
Mottled, 60s. and G4s. ; Wax Candles, Is. per lb. ; German Wax,
Is. 2d. ; Fine Wax, Is. sd. ; Transparent Wax, Is. lid. ; Genuine
Wax, 2s. Id.; Waxed-wick Moulds, 7 cl.; Sperm Oil, Bs. per gallon;
Solar, 3s. 3d. , Pale Seal, 4s. ; Argand, or Vegetable, 4s. Bd. ; Wind-
sor and Palm Soap, la. 4d. per packet; Brown Windsor, is. 9d ;
Rose, 2s. ; Almond, 2s. 6d. ; Sealing Wax, 45. 6d. ; Bale's Paragon
Composite, requiring no snuffing, 934 d. ier lb.
For Cash—At DAVIES'S Old Established Warehouse, 68, St.
Martin's-lane, opposite Slaughter's Coffee-house.

THE PERFECT SUBSTITUTE for SILVER.
The high estimate formed by the public during the twelve
years WILLIAM S. BURTON'S (late nirroN and BURTON'S)
chemically purified material has been before it (made into every
useful and ornamental article usually made in sliver, possessing, as
it dces, the characteristic purity and durability of silver), has called
into existence the deleterious compounds of " Albata Plate," " Berlin
Stver," and other so called substitutes ; they are at best but bad
Imitations of the genuine articles manufactured, and sold only by him.
Fiddle Threaded King's
Table Spoons and Forks, hall size per Pattern. Pattern. Pattern,

dozen.
Dessert ditto and ditto ditto•..... lOs. Od. 21s. Od. 255. Od
Tea ditto and ditto, ditto . . 3s. Od. 11s. Od. 12s. Od.
Gravy ditto •••• • • 3s. Od. 6s. Od. 7s. 0,1

NICKEL ELECTRO-PLATED. —The REAL NICKEL SILVER,
Introduced and made only by WILLIAM S. BURTON (late
RIPPON and BURTON'S), when plated by the patent process of
Messrs. Elkington and C0.,1 beyond all comparison the very best
article, next to sterling silver, that can be employed as such either
usefully or ornamentally. in the lengthened and increasing popu-
larity of the material itself, and the high character of the method of
plating, the public have a guarantee that the articles sold by W. S.
Burton (and by him only) are, as it regards wear, immeasurably
superior to what can be supplied at any other house, while by no
possible test can they be distinguished from real silver.
Fiddle. Thread. King's.
Tea Spoons, per dozen • •• .. 18s. • • 325. .. 38s.
Dessert Forks „ .••• • . . 30s. .. 465. .. 58s.
Dessert Spoons „
Table Forks . 40s• .. 68s. . • 755.
Table Spoons „ ••..•• • • .. 40s. .. 725. 80s.
Tea and coffee zets, waiters, candlesticks, &c., at proportionate
prices. All kinds of re-plating done by tile patent process, Detailed
catalogues, with engravings, as well as of every ironmongery article,
ent (per post) free.
WILLIAM S. BURTON (late RIPPON and BURTON'S) Stock
cf general Furnishing Ironmongery Is literally the largest in the
world, and as no language can be employed to give a correct idea of
its variety and extent, purchasers are invited to call and inspect it
—39, Oxford-strut (corner of Newman-street). Established In
Wells-street 1%90.

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.
(Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
We have received from Paris copies of the docu-
ments respecting the marriages of the Queen of Spain
with Don Francisco d'Assis and the Infanta with the
Duke de Montpensier, presented to the Chamber of De-
puties by M. Guizot on Tuesday last.
The following are translations of the most important
dispatches:—
LORD PALMERSTON TO LORD NORMANBY.
Foreign-office, Oct. 31, 1846.
My Lord,—Her Majesty's Government would willingly
have allowed the communications betweent the two
Governments on the Spanish marriages to close with M.
Guizot's dispatch of the sth inst., a copy of which was
transmitted to me by Count Jarnac on the Bth, if it were
not that there are some statements and some arguments
in that dispatch which it is impossible for her Majesty's
Government to leave entirely without a,reply.
M. Guizot's dispatch, like that from me to your Ex-
cellency, to which it was an...anawer, treats of two sub-
jects,—the marriage of the Queen of Spain, and the
marriage of the Infanta. With regard to the first I
have little to say, except • so far as I may have to touch
upon it in treating of the second ; and except to express
the sincere and earnest wish of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that it may conduce to the happiness of the Queen
and to the welfare of the Spanish nation. Her Ma-
jesty's Government, indeed, in answer to repeated appli-
cations from the Government of Spain on the subject of
the Queen's marriage, had instructed her Majesty's Mi-
nister at Madrid to recommend a different arrangement,
and had invited the French Government to join in that
recommendation ; but the recommendation of her Ma
jesty's Government was not givea to the Government of
Spain in the spirit of dictation, as M. Guizot's dispatch
would seem to imply ; nor did her Majesty's
Government either ask or expect that the Government
of France should exclusively recommend the candidate
whom her Majesty's Government thought the best. We
knew perfectly well, that if that candidate were not ac-
cepted by the Spanish Court, the French Government
watild recommend another; and I distinctly stated to
Collet Jarnae, in answer to a question-v-0110h he put to
me, that her Majesty's Government, having given its
opinion, would, in the event of that opinion not pre-
vailing, take no part either for or against the other can-
didate whom the French Government would afterwards
propose. But what I adverted to in regard to this
matter, in my former dispatch, is this, that while at the
latter end of August Count Jarnac was holding out to
me, and M. Guizot to your Excellency, the expectation
that M. Bresson would be instructed to co operate with
Mr. Bulwer in recommending the candidate whom the
British Government wished to pint out, provided that,
in the event of that candidate being rejected, Mr. Bulwer
would be instructed not to oppose M. Bresson in recom-
mending the other. M. Bresson was at that very time al-
ready deciding the matter at Madrid, against that first
candidate, in pursuance of instructions previously sent to
him from Paris; and her Majesty's Government think
that the French Government might as well have made
those instructions known to them, instead of continuing
to discuss the conditions of a joint action which those in-
structions had put entirely out of the question. And in
regard to these matters, with respect to which the
French Government professed at the time a desire for a
full mutual understanding, and now seems to imply that
a similar disposition was not equally felt by her Ma-
jesty's Government, it is to be observed that her Ma-
jesty's Government twice communicated to the French
Government the instructions which had been sent to
Mr. Bulwer ; the first time in extenso, and the second
time in substance ; whereas no similar communication
was ever made to her Majesty's Government of the ix.
structions sent to M. Bresson. But not only was the
confidence thus shown by her Majesty's Government
towards the Government of France not reciprocated, but
it was turned to purposes at variance with the spirit in
which it was made ; and though M. Guizot declared that
my instruction, of the 19th of July, to Mr. Bulwer, of
which a copy was communicated in confidence to M.
Guizot, and was sent immediately by him to M. Bresson,
was not used by M. Bresson in any public or official
manner, yet he does not deny ; that it was used by M.
Bresson in a manner unauthorised by her Majesty's
Government, to whom, and to whom alone, it belonged
to determine what use should be made at Madrid of its
own instruction to her Majesty's Minister at that Court.
M. Guizot reverts to the earlier periods of these trans-
actions, and admits that, from the outset, the King of
the French spontaneously made known that he did not
pretend to obtain the hand of the Queen of Spain for
any of his sons, and that he wished the Queen of Spain
to choose her consort from among the descendants of
Philip V., a category which, as the French Government
pointed out at the time, specifically excluded all the
members of the Royal Family of France. But surely
there declarations had reference to a principle, and not
simply, to a person. The objection of which his Ma-
jesty the King of the French by such declarations ad-
mitted the validity, was not that one of his sons should
be the husband of Isabella of Bourbon, but that one of his
sons should be the husband of the Queen of Spain ; and
the principle of that objection is therefore not confined
in its application to a marriage of one of his sons with the
reigning sovereign, but evidently applies also to a mar-
riage with the immediate heiress to the Crown. And
is this the doctrine of her Majesty's Government
detnhte
period alone ? And is it only now, for the first time, advanced?
by hisat
an Majestyan tenn
Far otherwise. It is a doctrine admitted virtually
pKiinngd
;of
for M.
French Guizot himself,
and Alludes
in his dispatch to certain engagements, from which
the French Government intimated, on the 27th of
February, 1846, that they should, in a specified contin-
gency, consider themselves freed and released. And
what were those engagements ? They were, first, the
engagement, originally and spontaneously made by, his
Majesty the King of the French, that no son of hs
should marry the Queen of Spain ; and, secondly, the
engagement, also spontaneously taken by his Majesty,
and by his Minister, in September, 1845, at Eu, that in
no case should the Duke of Montpensier marry the In-
fanta until the Queen of Spain should have been mar-
ried ; and until, by her having had children, the
prospect of a direct succession to the Spanish Crown
should have been assured. Does not the second of these
engagements prove that the first was understood by
those who made it exactly in the sense which I have
given to it ? and that the objection of which the King
of the French acknowledged the force and justice, was,
not that one of his sons should marry a particular
Princess of the House of Bourbon, but that any of his
sons should be the consort of the Queen of Spain ? And
his Majesty, feeling and admitting the force of that ob-
jection, proposed, of his own accord, that the marriage
which he wished to take place between his son and the
Infanta should be postponed until the birth of children
to the Queen should in some degree have divested that
marriage of the appearance of an attempt to take the
chance of attaining by indirect' means in one way that
which had been relinquished directly in another.
This last-mentioned engagement at Eu was obviously
not sufficient to remove the objections of the British
Government to the proposed marriage of the Duke of
Montpensier to the Infanta. But that engagement, such
as it was, ought to have been kept; and if it had been
kept, time would have been allowed to the two Govern-
ments to discuss with deliberation the various questions
connected with the matter, and they might have endea-
voured to have arrived at some; amicable arrangement
of their mutual views and interests with regard to it.
But the object of the French Government on this occa-
sion seems to have been so to precipitate the matter, as
to render all arrangement and mutual understanding im-
possible. This engagement, spontaneously made by the
French Government, has been broken; and upon what
plea? M. Guizot, in his dispatch, assigns two grounds
of excuse for its violation. The one, a circumstance ,
which happened during the administration of her Ma-
jesty's late Government; the other, some circumstances
which are said to have happened after her Majesty's
present Government came into office.
M. Guizot alludes to a communication which was made
to her Majesty's late Government on the 27th of
February of the present year, the purport of which was
that the King of the French would hold himself free
from the engagement 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 for the Duke of Montpensier, in a certain con-
tingency. That contingency M. Guizot stated, in his
dispatch, to have been defined to be, " if any combina-
tion should acquire consistency, which should make the
French Government fear that the Consort of the Queen
of Spain would be takennot from among the descendants
of Philip V."
This communication of the 27th of February, 1846,
upon which so much stress is laid as affording a justifi-
cation for the course which the French Government has
pursued, was verbal and unofficial. There is no record
of it in the Foreign-office. There is nothing to show that
it was ever acquiesced in by her Majesty's late Govern-
ment ; and the pretensions put forward, and the inten-
tions announced in it, are at variance with the principles
laid down, and with the opinions declared; by her Ma-
jesty's late, as well as her Majesty's present, Adminis-
tration. I never heard of this memorandum till lately.
It was never even mentioned to me by Count Jarnac
until after the event had happened for which it is now
quoted as a justification. It is said to have been a timely
warning, the neglect of which justifies the double mar-
riage, and its existence was made known to me, for the
first time, by Count Jarnac, after the news of the double
marriage had been received. About the middle of Sep.
tember, Count Jarnac showed me an unsigned memo-
randum, which he said was the record of the communi-
cation in question ; but, although I remember that the
passage quoted by M. Gutzot was in that memorandum,
yet, the specific contingency stated therein as the one
which would release the French Government from its en-
gagements, was the case of "there being at any time
an imminent danger of a marriage either of the Queen
of Spain, or of the Infanta, with Prime Leopold of Saxe
Coburg, or with any other foreign Prince, not being a
Bourbon, and not being a descendant of Phillip V. of
Spain ;" and it was in such a ease that the memorandum
declared, that his Majesty the King of the French would
consider himself free to ask for the Duke of Montpen-
sier the hand either of the Queen or of the Infanta.
It is to be remarked, that the memorandum thus places
both the marriage of the Queen, and that of the heiress
presumptive to the throne, in the same political:category;
but if there was between those two marriages, in the
opinion of the French Government, this identity of poli-

tical character, why did that Government, while it felt
the propriety of endeavouring to come to an understand-
ing with her Majesty's Government about the one mar-
riage, consider itself free to make a secret and surrepti-
tious settlement of the other ?
The memorandum further contained assurances that
each of the two Princesses ought to marry a desendant
of Philip V., and that consequently neither of them
should marry the Duke of Moatpensier, except in the
case of imminent danger of one or other of them being
married out of the House of Bourbon.
What, then, were the circumstances which are men-
tioned as having made such an event imminent ?
The first circumstance happened, as I have observed,
during the time of the late Government. M. Guiaot says
" that in. May of the present year the French Govern-
ment had addressed to the reining Duke of Saxe
Coburg, then on a visit to the Court of Lisbon, a message
for the purpose of negotiating the marriage of Prince
Leopold of Saxe Coburg with the Queen Isabella ; and
that the French Government had learned at the same
time, and with the same certainty, that this message had
been previously communicated to Mr. Bulwer, the Bri-
tish Minister at Madrid, and had received his approval ;
that the French Government immediately expressed, both
at London and at Madrid, its surprise and uneasiness, and
that it received from Lord Aberdeen assurances which
demonstrated his entire good faith."
Now what is the impression which this statement is
calculated to produce as to the course of the transaction
to which it relates? Why, evidently, that the French
Government having, from its own sources of information,
obtained a knowledge that a letter had been written by
the Spanish Court to the Duke of Saxe Cobourg, and
that it had been seen by Mr. Bulwer before it was sent
off, expressed to Lord Aberdeen its surprise and uneasi-
ness, and received from Lord Aberdeen,
factory assurances. But the real transaction was ex-
actly the reverse of this, as regards the communication
between the two Governments. in reply, satis-.

The first knowledge which the French Government
received of the letter having been written by Queen
Christina was from Lord Aberdeen himself. The first
knowledge which they had that this letter had been seen
by Mr. Bulwer was equally given to the.srd Aber-
deen." Theutrptlnersarmilvtleei escisturprise
at what they learned from Lord Aberdeen; and the first
expression of that surprise is said to have been accom-
panied not so much by uneasiness as by alleged incre.
dulity. The French Government seemed unwilling to
believe that such a letter could have been written, and
that they should have received the first intimation of it
from any other person than their own Minister at Ma-
drid. M. Guizot says that Lord Aberdeen, in reply to
the communication of the French Government, gave as-
surances which demonstrated his good faith. M. Guizot
ought rather to have said that Lord Aberdeen demon-
strated his good faith by spontaneously communicating to
Count St. Aulaire a fact of which the French Govern-
ment represented themselves as uninformed. Lord Aber-
deen thought himself bound to make known to the French
Government that such a letter had been written, because
he found that the letter had been shown to the British
Minister at Madrid before it was sent off ; and as Lord
Aberdeen had said to the French Government that her
Majesty's Government meant to take no active part in
favour of the Prince of Coburg, he thought it right to
inform them of what had passed, lest the bare knowledge
which her Majesty's Minister at Madrid had acquired of
this step might expose her Majesty's Government to the
suspicion of having changed their policy in this respect,
secretly, and without previously informing the French
Government that they intended to do so. It must be
confessed that, as regards Lord Aberdeen, it may be
said of the statement made of this transaction in M.
Guizot's dispatch, that " there is in it, perhaps, some
want of memory, or of justice."
At all events, this example of scrupulous good faith
on the part of Lord Aberdeen cannot be quoted as con-
stituting a reason why the French Government should
be released from the engagements which it had spon-
taneously taken towards the Government of Great
Britain.
The second circumstance upon which M. Guizot's dis-
patch founds the defence of the French Government in
this matter, took place, as I have said, since her Ma-
jesty's present Administration came into office.
M. Guizot says, that soon after the above-mentioned
communication between Lord Aberdeen and the French
Government had taken place, Lord Aberdeen retired
from office ; and the information received by the French
Government no longer permitted them to doubt that the
efforts which had been undertaken for the marriage of
the Queen of Spain with the Prince Leopold of Saxo
Coburg were actively pursued. No doubt that informa-
tion was correct; and it was not difficult for the French
Government to acquire it. Those efforts were actively
pursued; but where? and to overcome what obstacles?
Why, if her Majesty's Government have not been much
misinformed, those efforts were making specially at Paris
by the Marquis of Miraflores, who had been sent by the
Spanish Court on a particular mission to the King of
the French, to endeavour to prevail upon his Majesty to
withdraw the opposition which he had made to a match
which was stated by the Marquis to be anxiously desired
by the Court of Madrid. 'But that mission, at least, the
very foundation of which was the assumption that the
Coburg marriage could not take place without the assent
of the King of the French, afforded no excuse for a de-
parture from the above-mentioned engagement.
" But then," M. Guizot says, " in the midst of this
state of things, and in the anxiety with which it inspired
the French Government," he received from Count Jar-
nac my dispatch of the 19th of July to Mr. Bulwer.
This dispatch, he says, enumerated, for the first time,
Prince Leopold as one of the three remaining
rfsotr
mentionedthe Q ue i
en 'snhtahned ,e
enumeration.
.ri nice Prince's
p
's n ae
re
findeed, as M. Guizot admits, was expressed in that the candi-
dates
first
dis-
patch in favour of Prince Leopold ; but, on the other hpd ,
rmeewncaes
it is said that no objection was urged against _hins;
and the passage in that dispatch which stated that
" her Majesty's Government have only to express their
sincere wish that the choice may fall upon the candidate
who may be the most likely to secure the happiness o
the Queen and to ensure the welfare of the Spanish na-
tion," was, in the opinion of the French Government,
such a plain though indirect recommendation of the
Prince of Coburg, that this "dispatch was calculated, by
a mere act of laisser alley, to bring about that marriage
without any direct support or active co-operation of the
British Government. And it is argued that this dispatch
justified the French Government in taking its own mea-
sures in regard to the two marriages.
Now, in the first place, it is to be observed that if the
knowledge of this dispatch of the 19th of July by the
Spanish Court was calculated to render the Coburg
marriage probable, that knowledge was afforded to them
by M. Bresson, who showed them the" dispatch, and not
by Mr. Bulwer, who was told in it that her Majesty's
Government did not instruct him to take any step
thereupon. In as far, therefore, as a knowledge by the
Spanish Court of the sentiments expressed in that dis-
patch constituted, in the opinion of the French Govern•
went, a danger, that danger was created by their own
agent, and cannot be pleaded in their own defence.
With respect to the assertion, that Prince LeoP°lll., d
never before been officilaly mentioned as one of the can
didotes for the Queen's hand, and that his being g whichia
tioned in this dispatch gave him some advantag
he did not possess before, I would only observeeethhastd,
considering that almost every newspaper in Eertelli)a t the
long ago already so mentioned him; considering
s founded
w to be a, memorandum of the 27th of February, 1846,
on the assumption not only that he was known
h Uourt in
ing also, that the known wishes of the Span.is
candidate, but was likely to be the chosen one;
.
ear, been
regard to him had, later in the spring. of thtlismystion from
the subject of an official and threatening n
i'n consequence
M. Bresson to the Spanish Government,
deemed it necessary
of which the Spanish Government _onsider-
Aberdeen made,
England, to which communication Lord
considering,
on the 99th of June, an official reply; and
hen my dispatch of
moreover, that at the very momenta
Sp
Spanish envoy at Paris,
to make an official communication to the Government of
July was written there was a
Leopold to the Queen of
about the marriage of Prince Leopold
mere
mention of the
Spain, it is not easy to see how the
not intended to be
name of that Prince, in a dispatch
only for the personal information
sent expressly to negotiate with the French Government
' made public, and meant
Leopold with reference to the
alter the position of Prince Leopold
is
said that the dispatch of
adhered strictl • to th
marriage question. But
no
d objection to Prince Leo-
the 19th of July expressed
fler Majesty's present
of her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, could in any way
pold. Undoubtedly it did not.
predecessors. They havee
ground
dthfeerr
Government
judicious Governmentcourse
rhave
pursued in this
been of opinion, that no foreign had any
a candidate for the hand
right to object to any Prince as
political reasons connected with the
_nimenrtitnce of the
y ispatch of
of the Queen of an independent country,ms.uent less for those
balance of power, which were standas
thoseto reasons did
objecting to Prince Leopold as a candidate for the hand
sy
matterthei!
the
et
lateapp apply to
GovernmentP ri Prince
no r t Leopoldhe p
roef s
eSnatx;
.7C oabn
yu rggr,
stated that her Majesty's present Government were not
of the Queen of Spain. But that dispatch distinctly
prepared to give any
candi-
dates therein mentioned. Moreover, it refered Mr. Bul-
wer to the instructions which he had received en the
marriage question from my predecessor in office, and
among those instructions was the communication to him
of a copy of the note addressed cm the 29th of June,
1846, by Lord Aberdeen to the Duke of Sotomaysr, in
which Lord Aberdeen stated that " when an alliance of
the Queen of Spain with Count Trappani had manifestly
become odious to the Spanish nation, the British Go-
vernment had:ventured, although without any English
candidate or English preference, to point out the Infant
Don Enrique as the Prince who appeared to them to be
the most eligible, because the mast likely to prove ac-
ceptable to the people of Spain." And yet the French
Government endeavour to represent that a dispatch
which contained the passage first above quoted, and
which referred Mr. Bulwer to this last-mentioned expo-
sition of the sentiments of the late British Government,
as having been adopted by the present Government,
was to be considered as an indirect encouragement of
an
alliance of the Queen of Spain with Prince Leopold of
Saxe Coburg. M. Guizot admits that good faith r e
quires, that what is not attempted directly should
n
ue aimed at indirectly; and her Majesty's Government
cannot refrain from expressing some surprise at the
groundless insinuation contained in the passage on
which I have been remarking, seeing that M. puizot,
in the paragraph immediately following, direeti_
y admits

that her Majesty's Government had no intention to
put forward or to recommend Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg.
That admission is an acknowledgment of the exact
truth. The British Government has at no time put for-
ward or recommended that Prince as a candidate for the
hand of the Queen of Spain, and has at no time taken
an, step to promote his alliance with that Sovereign. If
that Prince, being the object of the choice of the Court
of Madrid, had also been wished for by the great majo-
rity of the people of Spain, and if his union with the
Queen would have created for Spain no embarrassment
in her foreign relations, the British Government would
cheerfully have taken any steps which it might have been
competent to take in order to facilitate such an arrange.
ment. But being led to doubt, by what had passed with
regard to Count Trappani, whether any foreign Prince
would be acceptable to the Spanish nation, and seeing-
that the objections expressed by the King of the French
to Prince Leopold, however unreasonable, unjust, and
in public law untenable they might be, might never-
theless, in the eventof that Prince becoming the consort
of the Queen, injuriously affect the relations of Spain
with France, the British Government, from the moment
when the Trappani match was abandoned, stedfastly and
constantly maintained the opinion, that it was desirable
for the interests of Spain that the Queen's choice should
fall upon a Spanish Prince.
It is true that when her Majesty's present Ministers
came into office great efforts were made by the Spanish
Court to obtain from them some expression of opinion
in favour of Prince Leopold; and not only were those
efforts made at Madrid, but the Duke of Sotomayor came
over from France, where he was residing on leave' of
absence, to urge personally the same request. The
British Government dealt with these applications, as
considering them made in good earnest, and as under-
standing them to express the real wishes of the Spanish
Court, and as made with no other object in view than
that which was professed. My dispatch of the 22d of
August to Mr. Bulwer conveyed an answer to the
Spanish Court; and on the 15th of August I gave an
answer to the Duke of Sotomayor, by stating to him
that which I had before more than once said to Count
Jarnao, namely, that the British Government had no
candidate of its own; that considering all the difficulties
connected with the selection of Prince Leopold, that
selection did not seem to us to be the best; that it would
be most advisable, on the whole, that a Spanish Prince
should become the Consort of the Queen, and that
amongst Spanish Princes Don Enrique seemed to us to
be the fittest.

These answers, no doubt, disappointed the expecta-
tions with which those overtures had been pressed upon
her Majesty's Government; but what was there in all
this which could justify the French Government in de-
parting from its voluntary engagements at Eu?—even
admitting, for the sake of argument, that her Majesty's
present Government were to be held bound by the me-
morandum of the 27th of February, which the French
Government had never either mentioned or communi-
cated to them.

But M. Guizot's dispatch goes on to say, that " The
French Government was unable to deceive itself as to
the state of things; and saw that there was on the part
of the Spanish Court so strong a desire for the Coburg
alliance, that if the British Government should make no
active opposition to it, and should remain only passive
in the matter, that marriage would certainly be con-
cluded; and that, consequently, the French Government
resorted at Madrid to the most direct and most legiti-
mate means, and appealed to the free choice and inde-
pendent will of the Queen and of her Government, to
bring about a different arrangement.
"By the side of a combination which was being
pursued evidently in opposition to the policy of the
French Government, that Government," says M.
Guizot, " offered a different combination; and this
latter one was accepted by the Queen and her Go-
vernment."

The contradiction between the opposite statements
contained in these passages is too obvious to require to
be pointed out. If the Spanish Court had so strong a
desire for the Coburg marriage, that nothing but the
active and decided opposition of the British Government
could have prevented that marriage, how did it happen
that in the absence, as M. Guizot alleges, of any such
opposition, the mere and simple offer of a different ar-
rangement by the French Government sufficed to pro-
cure the immediate adoption of that different arrange
went? And if, as M. Guizot states, the Spanish Court
acted in this matter with the most entire freedom,
what was the reason of so sudden a transition from what
is represented to have been an almost uncontrollable de-
termination for one arrangement, to a spontaneous and
equally decided adoption of another one? M. Guizot
says that this result was brought about by the most
urgent motives ; what those motives were he does not
explain. May it bo inferred that one at least among
those urgent motives was furnished by the urgency with
which M. Bresson pressed the arrangement which he
thus proposed to the Spanish Court? And might not
another of these urgent motives have been afforded by
the conviction, then already obtained by the Spanish
Court, that the British Government did not recommend
the Prince of Coburg, but thought that under all the cir-
cumstances of the case, a Spanish Prince would be fittest
consort for the Queen.
If that conviction was felt at Madrid—and her Ma-
jesty's Government have good ground for asserting that
it was there felt—what becomes of the excuse put for-
ward for the precipitate and secret settlement of the
marriage of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta,
upon the plea that the engagements of Ea had been
rendered void by the happening of the case of imminent
danger specified in the uncommunicated, and, at least by
her Majesty's present Government, anacquiesced-in
memorandum, of the 27th of February, 1846?

The imminent danger specified is thaimemoranclum was
the likelihood that either the Queen or the Infanta should
be about immediately to marry a foreign Prince, not
likteo existlihood
when M. Bresson demanded the hand of the Infanta for
the Duke of Montpensier. Not only had it then ceased
to exist, but with respect to the Queen, whose marriage
hadbein g
ever a descendant
existed, ofit PhhaidlipatV all eventsßut if
ceased that
dis-
cussion, it bad been succeeded by an impossibility ;
M
because, when M. Bresson demanded the hand of the
was at that time the immediate and only subject of
Infanta for the Duke of Montpensier, the marriage of
the Queen to the Infante Don Francisco had actually
been resolved upon and settled. Therefore, the memo-
randum of the 27th of February, 1846, cannot afford the
slightest ground on which to tbuild a justification for
breaking the engagement of Eu.
M. Guizot denies that the treaty and the renunciations
of Utrecht afford to the British Government any ground
of right for protesting against the marriage of the Duke
of Montpensier, and against its possible consequences.
Now, the British Government have protested against
that marriage, as at variance with the spirit of the
Treaty of Utrecht, and against certain contingent con-
sequences of that marriage, as a violation of the letter of
that treaty ; and her Majesty's Government are of
opinion that their protest rests upon good and sufficient
grounds.
• M. Guizot says that the Treaty of Utrecht had a
double object: the first to secure the Crown of Spain to
Philip V. and his descendants • the second to prevent
the possibility of a union of the Crowns of France and
Spain on one and the same head.
Now the first of these results was undoubtedly the
effect, but is nowhere put forth as one of the objects of
the treaty; and the second was a means and not an end.
andh realthe preceding
nogf
wthe r treaty,h ad b
e besidesen
undertaken;the r e -
storation of peace between the contracting parties, was
The
mainforw hic
and it is truly set ;forth in the second article of the
treaty between Great Britain and Spain, which recites
that, " La guerre qu'on vient determiner heureusement
par cette paix a ete entreprise au commencement, et
continue: si longtemps avec taut d'animosite et des de-
ponies immenses, aussi Bien qu'avec une effusion de sang
inexprimable, a cause du danger imminent dont la
liberte et la sitrete de toute l'Europe, a 6!4 menace's
par "union trop etroite des royaumes d'Espagne et de
France."

It was a too close and intimate union between the
kingdoms of France and of Spain which constituted
that danger to the balance of power in Europe which it
was the real object of the War of Succession, and cf the
tsrruaicenesse,actions of Utrecht, for over afterwards to avert;
and the means by which that too close and intimate
union was to be prevented, were the perpetual separa-
tion of the two Crowns, and the perpetual exclusion of
anyt Peordriinncg of
any
Prince
tooftthhoeef Royal Family of one of the two eoun-
tthhreondeesocf the descendants of such Prince, from
Her Majesty's Government, therefore, contend that
the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta
is at variance with the main object of the treaty ' • and
tvinhaialaitdhtithtybeeoltfehttetheemr renunciationsa , and positive stipulations, of the treaty,
would prevent any of the descendants of that Prince
n n
line."er
fvroolTmvheeuspurocrcneenethdcheinir Governmentg to the throne of Spain, "whatever
n which
do
of theun
o t
rteop successionrhett.
eT h
might
the
validity pretend to deny
e
renun-
ciations were clear, positive, explicit, and comprehensive.
They
were incorporated in the treaty, and were made
part of the law both of France and of Spain ; and the
King of France engaged by the stipulations of the treaty
" Solennellement et par parole de Roi" that neither he
nor his heirs and successors " ne feront jamais rien, ni
ne permettront qne jamais it fat rien fait, capable d'em-
pcicher les renonciations, d'avoir leur plein en entier
effet." But that, on the contrary, they would take sin-
cere care, and exert themselves, afin que rien ne donne
atteinte a ce fondement du salut public, nine puisse
reibranler."
Her Majesty's Government are surprised that in the
face of such renunciations and of such stipulations and
engagements, the French Government should endeavour
to represent, as implied, though not directly asserted,
in M. Guizot's dispatch, that the descendants of the
Duke of Montpensier could relieve themselves from the
positive and perpetual exclusion whbetelataches toat them I
from the transactions of Utrecht, by ea th they
would inherit rights from the Infanta Luisa Fernanda.
It is manifest that no claim transmitted to them by the
Infanta could counterbalance or set aside the positive
disqualification which they will inherit from the Duke of
Montpensier. Nothing is more common than that the
disqualification inherited by children from one of their
parentsfrshomoutldheinovthaleir.:
invalidate all the qualification which they
inherit
But if there were any value in this implied assertion
of the French Government, and if the marriage of the

PRICE SD.

Duke of Montpensier with the Infanta would really free
his descendants from the disabling effects of the renun-
ciations of Utrecht, how could the conclusion of that
marriage be reconciled with the above quoted engage-
ment of the Crown of France solemnly taken, "et par
parole de Roy," never to do nor to permit to be done,
anything which could be capable of preventing those
renunciations from having their full and entire effect?
The French Government., therefore, must either
admit that the descendants of the Duke of Montpensier
are excluded by virtue of the renunciations in the Treaty
of Utrecht. or they must acknowledge that they have
violated the engagements contained in that treaty.
M. Guinot, however, quotes instances of marriage of
two Princes of Spain with Princesses of France, and of
a Prince of France with a Princess of Spain; and he says
that the last instance is remarkable, because it was the
heir to the Crown of France who married one of the
heiresses of the Crown of Spain.
To these instances her Majesty's Government would
reply, that even if they were cases in which the stipula-
tions of Utrecht had been overlooked, the fact of their
having been so overlooked by statesmen in the last cen-
tury would be no reason why they should not be appealed
to and observed by statesmen in the present century, if
those stipulations are in themselves clear, positive, and
indisputable.
Doubtful stipulations may receive an interpretation
from precedents ; but a treaty that is plain and precise
can only be invalidated by an act as formal as itself.
A law is not abrogated for one man, because another
man has abstained from appealing to its enactments ;
and a treaty is not annulled for one generation, because
another generation, under circumstances essentially
different, may have allowed its stipulations to lie
dormant.

—But the cases quoted by M. Guizot are very different
from that of the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier.
In all these cases the Salic law was in force both in
France and in Spain, and the Princesses in question,
instead of being immediate heiresses to the crown of the
country to the Royal Family of which they respectively
belonged, were, in the two first- instances, by the law of
France altogether excluded ; and in the third instance,
by the law of Spain, excluded until all the male heirs
should be extinct. It is obvious that while the Salic law
was in force in both countries, the strict enforcement of
the stipulations of Utrecht in regard to women might
well be considered as less important than it has now be-
come, since the change which has of late years been
made in the law of succession in Spain. But with respect
to the cases quoted, it may be observed as to the first,
that, after that marriage, the treaty between Spain and
Austria in 1729, still further confirmed and recorded the
exclusion of all French Princes and their descendants
from the throne of Spain ; and with respect to the third,
that no descendants of that marriage have succeeded, or
have claimed a right to succeed, to the Spanish Crown.
M. Guizot, indeed, says that the stipulations of
Utrecht will suffice for the future, as they have done for
the past, for the interests of peace and for the balance of
power in Europe. If her Majesty's Government are to
understand by that sentence, that, whereas no French
Prince or his descendant has since the Treaty of Utrecht
claimed to succeed to the throne of Spain, no French
Prince or his descendant will ever claim so to succeed in
future, her Majesty's Government would admit that the
question at issue between the two Governments was
divested of much of its practical importance.
Her Majesty's Government, however, cannot admit
that the experience of the past, as asserted by M. Gui-
zot, has demonstrated that foreign influence has no
power of swaying the international policy of Spain. On
the contrary, the history of the last century affords
many examples to show how, in consequence of that in-
timate connexion which, notwithstanding the Treaty of
Utrecht, continued to subsist between the Crowns of
France and Spain, Spain followed France into war, and
made peace only when France did so too.
It is true, indeed, as M. Guizot reminds her Majesty's
Government, that in the present century Spain made a
great and successful effort to vindicate her national in-
dependence ; and it may be remarked that the unani-
mity of feeling which then crowned her exertions with
success, was much strengthened by the deep impression
produced throughout Spain by the secrecy and surprise
with which those proceedings were conducted which
were intended to lead to the establishment of a French
Prince on the Spanish throne.
The British Government has not, as M. Guizot seems
to suppose, forgotten those events, nor does it fail to
render justice to the patriotism then displayed by the
Spanish nation ; and her Majesty's Government are
convinced that on any analogous occasion the same spirit
would animate the whole Spanish people.
But her Majesty's Government would deeply lament
that any such occasion should arise again to let loose on
the Peninsula a tempest of angry passions, and again to
pour forth on the soil of Spain a deluge of human blood.
The calamities of such a conflict, however great they
may be, are not too dear a price for a people to pay for
the maintenance of their national independence ' • and
though other States may be involved in the evils con-
nected with such a struggle, sound policy may lead them
to choose immediate exertions and sacrifices, rather than
encounter the future dangers which apathy and inacti-
vity would render too certain. But great would be the
responsibility which would weigh upon those who should
wantonly have been the cause of such evils; and if those
evils, besides being unnecessarily produced, bad their
origin in breaches of treaties and of engagements, that
responsibility would, indeed, be heavy and overwhelming.
I have to instruct you to read this dispatch to M.
Guizot, and to send him officially a copy of it.—l am, &c.,
(Signed) PALMERSTON.

M. GUIZOT TO COUNT JARNAC.
Paris, Nov. 22, 1846.

Monsieur le Comte,--I send you herewith a copy of
the dispatch from Lord Palmerston, dated the 31st of
October last, which Lord Normanby communicated to
me on the 4th of the prosent month. Having answered
already most of the allegations repeated in this docu-
ment, I shall confine myself to correcting the more seri-
ous of the errors which it contains, and to reiterating,
conformably with the truth, the more important of the
facts to which it relates. The only effect of lengthened
controversy is to throw obscurity on the controverted
matter, and to raise animosity between the parties to the
dispute. Whilst it asserts the rights and the interests of
France, the King's Government is earnestly desirous of
maintaining the most friendly relations with the Govern-
ment of her Britannic Majesty, and to this sentiment I
shall remain faithful.

Lord Palmerston endeavours to make out that the
King's Government has not kept the engagements re-
lating to the Spanish marriages which it entered into
into in September, 1845, at the Palace of Eu ; and
that it has broken the Treaty of Utrecht, with the ob-
ligations which that treaty imposes upon it. Such are
the terms of his dispatch ; and the more unmeasured
these terms are, the more anxious I am to reproduce
them without attenuation, that I may give them an unre-
served answer.

Lord Palmerston declared, in his dispatch of the 22d
of September last, that he had not found in the Foreign-
office any convention or arrangement between tho French
and English Governments relating to the Spanish mar-
riages. He insists, in his dispatch of the 31st of October
last, on the engagements relating to the same matter,
which, as he says, were entered into by the King's Go-
vernment at the Palace of Eu, affirming, at the same
time, that there is not in the Foreign. office any trace of
the memorandum written by me on the 27th of February
last, and communicated to Lord Aberdeen on the 4th of
March following.
I might ask, in my turn, whether there exists in the
Foreign-office any trace of the engagements contracted
at the Palace of Eu? I might, moreover, urge (with
some surprise at the inconsistency) that, while he affects
a perfect knowledge of engagements not attested by the
faintest official evidence, he disputes facts and documents
which it would. not be convenient to admit, on the
ground that there is no official trace of their existence.
This (might it not be said ?) is a striking contradiction,
and evinces an extreme partiality for his own view of
the question.

I shall, however, do nothing of the sort. I shall not
dispute the engagements contracted at Eu, because no
record of them has been found by Lord Palmerston in
the Foreign•offace. Where Governments are connected
by mutual confidence and respect, public business is not
unfrequently transacted without official documents.
There are even circumstance in which this course is
dictated to them by propriety, and in which, therefore,
they are bound to pursue it. Such was the case in re-
spect to the Spanish marriages. As the question related
substantially to the domestic concerns of Spain, it in-
volved considerations which regarded her independence
and dignity. Lord Aberdeen cud myself (who were de-
sirous of acting in concert throughout the affair) did not
think it fitting to make the question the subject of nn
official correspondence. Out of respect towards Spain,
and considering our own position relatively to her, we
thought that we should act with more propriety by con-
fining our correspondence to those less formal com-
munications which were rendered natural and easy by
our mutual confidence.
It is for this reason that Lord Palmerston has not
found in the Foreign-office any
trace of the negotia-
tions or arrangements which, in his dispatch of the 22d
of September, lie styles a bargain. But the engage-
ments contracted at Eu, with the declarations in the
memorandum of the 27th of February, ure not, on that
account, the less real or serious; and, so far am I from
disputing theta, that I am anxious to acknowledge
their existence, and to assert their true and serious
character.
It is, however, my duty, whilst making this acknow-
ledgment, to re-state them correctly arid completely.
Now, in referring to the engagements contracted at Eu,
Lord Palmerston forgets, or omits to say, that these en-
gagements were mutual and conditional. •Whenever we
have adverted to them, we have coupled them with two
reservations : first, that the Queen of Spain should
choose her consort amongst the descendants of Philip
V.; secondly. that the English Government, in concert
with us, and according to the measure of its
should help us to secure the accomplishment of means,tiiai
object.
We could not, indeed (without the most culpable im-
prudence), have restricted our liberty
matter of such serious importance, unless of action ipti
we had limited
,ier engagements by conditions demanded from us by the
*
interests and dignity of France
I have openly, and on every occasion, announced our
line of policy in respect to the matter in question. I have
frequently conversed on the subject with the English

r~ ~~

/

-.-----___
Ambassador at Paris; and I haver orTwarned him, in4ll. re\k-di'
Stis,.
4,\
my conversations with him, of the mune iihte't, ,i.-0-.7%!**.q."
should pursue, if a Prince not descended from ' , ;;;V:4V.i.! '. .
(and especially if the Prince Leopold of Sin bin, '), -i• )
should oiler himself, with a prospect of sucAig,\- ,sklikiti-. 171i!":„:4;
didate fur the hand of the Queen of Spain. \"rhet:-&g_,a-----
lish Government, therefore, was fully apprise lribe IS Y.
reservations annexed to our engagements, adif4e tlie
concurrence which we expected from it. .
It told us, I admit, that it could not adopt the prin-
ciple of our policy; and that in respect to this question
it could not place itself in our position, or hold our lan-
guage, or pursue our line of conduct. It assured us,
however, that it would act in the same spirit and pursue
the same object. Nor was there in this conduct of the
two Governments anything in the nature of a bargain.
It was, on both sides, a conduct perfectly rational, unre-
served, and sincere. We constantly relied on its conti-
nuance.

According to Lord Palmerston, the Marquis of Mira-
fibres, during the last summer, was sent on a mission to
Paris by the Court of Spain, for the purpose of persuad-
ing the King and his Government to acquiesce in the
marriage of Queen Isabella with the Prince of Coburg.
This assertion is entirely groundless. During the two
months which he passed in Paris, the Marquis of Mira-
tlores never made to the King's Government any com-
munication or overture of the purport indicated by Lord
Palmerston; nor did he ever address to me a single word
to that effect.
I pointed out, in my dispatch of the sth of October
last, that the placing Prince Leopold at the head of the
three candidates for the hand of Queen Isabella was
calculated to produce the effect of an indirect recommen-
dation of that Prince. I then added, " admitting that
Lord Palmerston did not intend to propose or to recom-
mend the Prince of Coburg, he would certainly acknow-
ledge himself that he said nothing to induce him to
withdraw his pretensions, or to discourage the Spanish
Government from persisting in its designs."
Lord Palmerston entirely mistakes the meaning of this
sentence. "M. Guizot," he says, ‘‘ directly admits that
her Majesty's Government had uo intention to put for-
ward or to recommend Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg;
that admission is an acknowledgment of the exact truth."
The intention of Lord Palmerston to recommend
Prince Leopold, of Coburg, by his instructions of the
19th of July I neither admitted nor contested. It is
not the intentions, but the effects, which it is my pro-
vince and my duty to determine. I endeavoured to
show the effect which these instructions would naturally
produce at Madrid, even admitting hypothetically that
Lord Palmerston did not intend to put forward or to
recommend that Prince.

Proceeding to discuss what I said to you (in my dis-
patch of the sth of October) on the effect of his instruc-
tions of the 19th of July, ut Madrid, Lord Palmerston
quotes, as if it were extracted verbatim from my dis-
patch, the following passage :—(I place his quotation,
and the passage in my dispatch, side by side.)
LITERAL TRANSLATION OF TRANSLATED QUOTATION IN- •
THE ORIGINAL TEXT. SERTED IN THE ENGLISH
DOCUMENT.
" The French Government "The French Government
could not be mistaken as to was unable to deceive itself
this state of things. In order as to the state of things,' and
to obviate its consequences, saw that there was, on the
it resorted at Madrid to the part of the Spanish Court,
most direct and most legiti- so strong a desire for the
mate means, and appealed to Coburg alliance, that, if the
the free choice and inde- British Government should
pendent will of Queen Isa- make no active opposition to
belle and of her Government. it, and should remain only
By the side of the combine- passive in the matter, that
tion which was being pur- marriage would certainly be
sued in evident opposition to concluded;' and that, conse-
its policy, it placed and of- quently, the French Govern-
fered a different combination. ment resorted at Madrid to
It had a right to do so, the most direct and most
having openly and positively legitimate means, and ap-
made a reservation of that pealed to the free choice and
right to itself: It was its independent will of the
duty to do so, for the con- Queen and of her Govern-
tingency in view of which ment, to bring about a dif-
that reservation had been ferent arrangement, By the
made, and which the French side of a combination which
Government had foreseen in was being pursued evidently
its instructions sent to Ma- in opposition to the policy of
drid, as well as in its declara • the French Government,
Lions in London, became that Government (says M.
more and more imminent. Guizot) offered a different
This combination the Queen combination, and this latter
of Spain and her Government one was accepted by the
have accepted." Queen and her Government."

On reading this passage, I felt, I confess, extreme
surprise; the phrases which I have quoted are not in
my dispatch; nor can I consider this interpolation as in-
different, since Lord Palmerston avails himself of it to
impute to me " palpable contradictions." These contra-
dictions would be palpable indeed, if all the phrases from
which they are said to result had really existed; but he
must permit me to repudiate contradictions which are no
production of mine.
Speaking of the overture made in May last by the
Court of Madrid, with the knowledge and concurrence
of the English Minister, fur the purpose of offering the
hand of the Queen of Spain to the Prince of Coburg, I
did not mention that I had received my first information
of that overture from Lord Aberdeen. Lord Palmerston
expresses surprise at this silence. I thank him for this
reproof. It is true that Lord Aberdeen was the first
who gave me that information, which was soon after
confirmed by the King's Ambassador at Madrid.
Nothing, certainly, could have better suited the
King's Government than giving publicity to this fact;
since it shows at once the sincerity of Lord Aber-
deen, his engagement to aid us in preventing the
Prince of Coburg from offering himself for the Queen's
hand, and the fidelity with which he adhered to
it. But, having received the information as a
confidential and private communication, I felt
uncertain whether it would be agreeable to Lord Aber-
deen himself that I should declare officially that it had
reached me through him. It appeared to me that I could
not make that use of it without his authority. It is with
heartfelt satisfaction that I now offer this acknowledg-
ment to the undeviating sincerity with which, on this
occasion, as on many others, be pursued that policy of
entire confidence and intimate concert to which we were
mutually pledged.
I must draw one short comparison. In the month of
May Lord Aberdeen gave me immediate information of
the proceedings which first rendered it certain that
Prince Leopold of Coburg was a candidate for the Queen's
hand. lle disavowed these pretensions, and blamed the
English Minister at Madrid for having taken any share
in those proceedings. Tn the month of July following,
without any notice, without any previous communica-
tion with us, Lord Palmerston himself proclaimed Prince
Leopold of Coburg a candidate, and instructed Mr.
Bulwer to express the sincere desire of the English Go-
vernment that the choice might fall on that one of the
three candidates who might be most acceptable to Spain
and to the Queen.
And when, as soon as we were made acquainted with
this dispatch, you represented to Lord Palmerston the
serious objections which it suggested, and you asked
him if it could not be in some degree reconsidered, he
replied that it was already forwarded.
Who will say that no change had taken place? Who
will say that we ought, that we could have closed our
eyes to such a change, and in blind inaction awaited the
chances of what might occur?
The most obvious duty and the commonest foresight
prescribed to the King's Government its conduct. The
Government had promised, in September, 1845, not to
conclude the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta until the Queen of Spain should be married
and should have a child, provided, however, that the
Queen gave her hand to one of the descendants of
Philip V., and that the English Government aided
us in bringing about that result. The King's Govern-
ment has faithfully performed its promise. In Novem-
ber, 1845, a proposal was made to it, in order to de-
cide the marriage of the Queen with a descendant of
Philip V., to consent to the immediate and simul-
taneous marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta. This proposal it rejected. In May, 1846,
we saw the hand of the Queen offered to Prince Leopold
of Coburg, and in the July following that Prince offi-
ciily announced as a candidate, without objection or
comment by the English Government. We could not
but regard the chance of that alliance as probable and
imminent. To obviate that chance, we were justified in
consenting (and indeed bound to consent) to the imme.
diate marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with the
Infanta. The King's Government has not in a single
instance, nor im a single point, violated its engagements.
It has, on the contrary, scrupulously observed them ;
subject to the reservations and within the limits which it
had constantly assigned to them, and which it had care-
fully made known beforehand.
The King's Government has not been less observant
of the Treaty of Utrecht than of its own engagements.
The meaning of this treaty, and the consequences
which it implies, are thus summed up by Lord Palmer-
ston :—That the Crowns of France and Spain shall be
for ever separated ; that every Prince of the Royal
Family of either country, tr gether with all his descendants,
shall be for ever excluded from succeeding to the throne
of the other ; and that this exclusion shall take efkct
whatever be the nature of their title to such succession.
The former of these principles, the perpetual separa-
tion
of the two Crowns, I have fully admitted. Itd
not, however, follow from this principle,srhaaitn marriages
ate to be
between the royal Houses of Franceand
prohibited; or that princes issuing fromS
Spanish Crown which
such marriages
are to lose those rights to the p_
may accrue to them as descendants of Philip V. Whilst
I admit the principle, I maintain that the inference
(which nobody
.in Europe ever thought of before) is not
deducible from it.
I will only reiterate one of the facts which I have al-
ready cited (and which I might have multiplied), to
prove that this opinion was general in Europe during
the entire course of the last century.
In 1721 Louis 1., King of Spain, and son of Philip V ,
married Mademoiselle de Montpensier, daughter of the
Regent, Duke of Orleans, the very Prince who had
signed, in 1712, the renunciation, by the Orleans branch,
of its eventual rights to the Spanish throne.
Now, if Louis I. had had children, a grandson of the
Regent would have ascended the Spanish throne; and in
presence of this fact, which would have happened in the
lifetime of the parties who signed the Treaty of Utrecht,
what would have become of the inference drawn from it
by Lord Palmerston? _ _ _

"But, admitting (says he, in his dispatch of the 31st
of October) that there were cases in which the stipula-
tions of Utrecht had been overlooked, the fact of their
having been so overlooked by statesmen in the last cen-
tury would be no reason why they should not be appealed
to, and observed by statesmen in the present."
In reply to this answer of Lord Palmerston, I shall
produce a fact more recent, and carrying with it a weight
which he will not contest.

In 1739, the Infant Don Philip, Duke of Parma, and
son of Philip V., married Louisa Elizabeth, daughter of
Louis XV. In 1765, the Infanta Louisa Maria Theresa,
a child of this marriage, and therefore a grandchild of
Louis XV., married Don Carlos, Prince cf Asturias,
who was afterwards King of Spain, under the name of
Charles IV. Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, was, there-
fore a great grandson of Louis XV., and his daughter,

i ~
_~ ,=G

Qucc n Isabella IL, is lineally descended from the same
King of France. Did it ever occur to Lord Palmerston
to question the right of Ferdinand VU. or Isabella 11.
to reign over Spain?
Lord Palmerston, in the 19th century, has done pre-
cisely what had been done by his predecessors (and, in-
deed, by all Europe) during the course of the 18th. He
has not pretended, or so much as imagined, that the
right of Isabella 11. (or of Ferdinand VII.) was dis-
putable or doubtful; that, by her descent from a branch
of the Royal House of France, which had renounced its
rights to the Spanish throne; she lost those rights to the
same thrOne which had devolved upon her as a descendant
of Philip V.
The natural and, true construction of the Treaty of
Utrecht carries with it such resistless conviction, that,
till it was questioned upon the present occasion, it has
been admitted universally and without hesitation.
Not content with the misconstruction to which I have
jti4t adverted, Lord Palmerston puts upon the treaty a
false interpretation which is more serious still, which
strikes at its fundamental purpose, or rather, I might
say, at its existence.
Lord Palmerston says, :that the main and real object
of the treaty, besides the restoration of peace between
the contracting parties, was that for which the preceding
war had been undertaken; that the main and real ob-
ject was to avert a too close and intimate union between
the kingdoms of France and Spain; and that the history
of the last century affords many examples to show, how,
notwithstanding the Treaty of Utrecht, this intimate
union continued to subsist.
Therefore, in Lord Palmerston's opinion, the Treaty
of Utrecht did not suffice during the last century (and,
consequently, does not suffice at the present hour) to
accomplish its main and real object; and that this
object must be sought, not in the fundamental condi-
tions of the peace which the treaty established, but in
the purposes of the war by which it had been preceded.
Strange forgetfulness of the lessons of experience, and
of the warnings which it has imparted, in all ages, to
the most powerful human designs! Governments en-
gaging in a war do not attain by it all the objects with
which they had flattered themselves; and when they are
forced by necessity, or persuaded by prudence, to put an
end to the war, peace is re-established (in almost all
cases) on a compromise of their conflicting pretensions.
It was the purpose of England and her allies to prevent
the grandson of Louis XIV., and the descendants of
that grandson, from establishing themselves on the
throne of Spain ; and it was intended by
Louis XIV., when he accepted the Spanish
Crown for a branch of his family, _that this
branch should retain its rights to the Crown of
France. Such, during the first periods of the war,
were the objects and aspirations of the parties to it;
but, after twelve years of sanguinary conflict, the spirit of
peace resumed its ascendancy, and the two nations came
to a compromise. England and her allies consented
on the one part, that a branch of the House of Bourbon
should,sit on the throne of Spain ; and Louis XIV.
consented, on the other, that the respective rights of the
Royal Houses of France and Spain should be completely
separated. Such was the Treaty of Utrecht, and such
was its main and real purpose. Accordingly, it did not
give to any of the belligerents all the objects which had
moved them to the war ; but it gave to all parties,
through a compromise of their adverse pretensions, the
peace which all of them needed.
Those who would close their eyes to a fact so evident,
and would seek, not in the definitive conditions of the
peace which terminated the war of the Spanish succes-
sion, but in the original purposes of that war, the prin-
ciples of their pretensions and their policy—those would
in truth be. the violaters of the Treaty of Utrecht, of its
spirit and of its letter, and would incur, before Europe,
now peaceful and happy, the responsibility of the con-
sequences of such a violation.
The ging's Government adheres faithfully to the
Treaty of Utrecht, since it merely wishes to maintain
the bases of the European balance of power, as that
treaty determined them. On the contrary, Lofd Pal-
merston, at the very moment when he is appealing upon
a special point to the Treaty of rtrecht, rejects the
fundamental principles of that treaty, and discloses a
po!icy which assuredly is not one of peace and of for
bearance.

I have now accomplished what I had undertaken. I
have corrected the more serious of the errors contained
in Lord Pahnerston's dispatch of the 31st of October,
and I have stated in their real and true light the more
important of the facts to which it relates. In a true spirit
of moderation and of peace, I abstain from every remark
which could merely tend to prolong a controversy hence-
fc without object. lam earnestly desirous of saying
nothing but what necessity constrains me to state—no-
thing which might impede, in either country, the return
of a friendly and cordial policy—a policy (I have some
right to assert) to which no one has been, or remains,
more faithfully attached than myself. I think that the
facts have now been sufficiently brought to light to
justify me in here closing this discussion. In concluding
it, I will endeavour to replace it within its true and con-
stitutional bounds. Lord Palmerston has introduced a
name which should never have been mentioned ; my
duty commands me to express my surprise, and to recal
to his recollection, that the responsibility of the policy
pursued by the King's Government, in respect to this
question, rests with myself alone, as my honour and
my right.
I beg you to read this dispatch to Lord Palmerston,
and to give him a copy of it.
Accept, Monsieur le Comte, the assurance of my most
distinguished consideration.

(TO BE CONTINUED.)

COURT CIRCULAR.

The Queen and Prince Albert accompanied by their
Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, Prince Alfred,
the Princess Royal, the Princess Alice, and the Princess
Helena, and attended by the Marchioness of Douro,
Lord Waterpark. Major General Bowles, Lord Alfred
Paget, and Colonel Seymour left Claremont, at half-past
two o'clock yesterday afternoon, for Windsor Castle.
In the forenoon his Royal Highness Prince Albert, at-
tended by some of the Gentlemen of the Royal suite, en-
ioyed the sport of shooting.
Wimps° R, Tit Ira SDA Y. —.Her Majesty and Prince
Albert returned to the Castle, from Claremont, at a
quarter-past four o'clock this afternoon, accompanied by
the Prince of Wales, Prince Affect', the I'rincess Royal,
and the Princesses Alice and Helena. The Royal suite
consisted of the Lady in Waiting, the Marchioness of
Douro, the Lord in Waiting, Lord Watcrpark, the
Equerry in Waiting, Lord Alfred Paget, the Equerry in
Waiting to Prince Albert, Colonel Seymour, and the
Master of the Household, General Bowles.

Count Schemmelpenninck, the Netherlands Minister,
Baron de Beast, the Saxon Minister, and Baroness de
Beust, Viscount Palmerston, and Sir Hamilton and Lady
Seymour, are expected to arrive at the Castle to-day on a
visit to her Majesty.
The royal dinner party at the Castle this evening is
expected to include her 'loyal Highness the Duchess of
Kent, his Excellency Count Schemmelpenninck, their
Excellencies Baron and Baroness de Beust, the Lady in
•
Waiting of the Duchess of Kent, the Baroness de Speth,
Viscount Palmerston, and Sir Hamilton and Lady bey-
mom.

The band of the Ist Life Guards attend during dinner.
Her Majesty's private band will afterwards attend in the
Castle.

A Cabinet Council was held yesterday afternoon at
the Foreign-office. The Ministers present were Lord
John Russell, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Lans-
downe,
,the Earl of Minto, Sir George Grey, Viscount
Palmerston, Earl Grey, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, the Earl of Auckland, Sir John Hobhouse, Lord
Campbell, Viscount blorpeth, the Earl of Clarendon, the
Marquis of Clanricarde, the Right Hon. T. B. Macau-
lay, and the Right Hon. H. Labouchere.
The council sat two hours and a half.
Archdeacon Hoare had an interview with the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer yesterday, at his official resi-
dence in Downing-street.
Mr. George Aisbury had an interview with the Earl
of Clarendon yesterday, at the office of the Board of
Trade.

Lord: Hatherton arri►ed at the Brunswick Hotel,
Hanover-square, yesterday, from his seat, Teddesley-
park, Staffordshire.

SPORTING IN TiLLIGEN CE.
TATTERSALL'S.— Tu u RSDA Y.
Decidedly the dullest afternoon since the Houghton
Meeting; no apology, therefore, is necessary for confuting
our report to the "business done."

THEATRE ROYAL, DRURY-LANE.
The emiuent PANTOMIME THEATRE, azil the FIRST PANTO-
MIME COMPANY.
THIS EVENING

Will be performed Balfe's Opera, entitled THE BONDMAN.
Marquis de Vernon, Mr. Weiss ; Floreville, Mr. Rafter ; Morliere,
Mr. Horneastle; Ardenford, Mr. W. Harrison (his first appearance
since his indisposition); Mal-a-Propos, Mr. Harley; Madame Co-
rinne, Miss Romer; Grisette, Miss R. Isaacs ; Frivole, Mrs. Hughes.
After which will be produced the Grand Comic Christmas Panto-
mime, being a mixture of the historical and legendary, entitled
HARLEQUIN AND ST. GEORGE AND THE DRAGON. The
Overture and Music composed by Mr. R. Hughes; the new and ex-
tensive Scenery by Mr. Grieve, Mr. Telbin, and numerous as-
sistants ; the Tricks and Transformations by Mr. Blamire ; the Ma-
chidery by Mr. R. Sloman ; the Dresses by Mrs. Bovey, Mrs. Balls,
and a host of auxiliaries. The whole produced under the superin-
tendence of Mr. W. West.
Scene 1. ABODE OF KALYBA, THE ENCIIANTRYSS.—Dat and lo-
cality not exactly known, but considered by the Antiquarian Society
to have been discovered " somehow or other," " some time or other,"
near " somewhere or other," Kalyba (the Enchantress, not by Balfe,
mistress of all the elements, except those of " Arithmetic," having
quite miscalculated her power), Mr. H. Horneastie ; Fiends and Fu-
rled (ilListrating a common expression of speech, with anything but
a common expression of countenance), Messrs. J. W, Morgan, Burt,
Connell, and H. Payne ; Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. (the four Ele-
ments, with a strong love of mischief), by Dealers in each ; the
March of Intellect (travelling " mcog." " Young England," a true
bit of British blood, by Intellect out of Industry, dam by Science,
out of Perseverance, has never been beaten, and can be matched
against anything), Miss Annie Payne.—flow the March of Intellect
says a " flying visit" to Kalyba ; and how, being empowered by the
Committee on National Education, he gives the old lady sudden no-
tice to quit, by as suddenly changing the premises to
Scene 2. INTERIOR OF INFANT SCHOOL.—Schoolmaster, Mr. Big-
wig, who, at the request of' his " Illustrious Visitor," gives the boys
a half-holiday on the occasion.
Scene 3. EXTERIOR AND BARBACAN OP COVENTRY CASTLE.—
The Earl of Coventry (Lord High Steward of England, and his own
into the bargain), Mr. Mazzoni ; the Countess of Coventry (a good
housewife, and supposed to have been the inventor of the celebrated
"Coventry Cake"), Miss Haines ; Head Nurse (with a good character
from her last place), Mr. Cheel ; Master George (afterwards cele-
brated for a battle he fought with a dragon, but at present without
any knowledge of " arms," except his nurse's), Miss Marks ; Masters
Andrew, David. Patrick, Denis, James, Anthony (very youthful
knights, but destined, with their " cousin George," to astonish the
natives by and by as " The Seven Champions of Christendom"), Mas-
ters Coyle, Savell, Dix, Welsh, Desborg, Francis.—How the youthful
St. George is feted on his birth-day—how he makes his" first," and
nearly his " last " appearance is public on the occasion—how his
" cousins " Andrew, David, Patrick, Denis, James, and Anthony
come to a ish him many happy returns of the day—and how Kalyba
shows her " love of children" by taking the " whole brood under
her wing."
NOTICE.—" Nothings material to our historic" occurring during
a period of fifteen years, the author trusts that the audience will al-
low him to cut it, and come again to
Scene 4. KALYBA'S HOUSE OF COBRiCTIONI—St. George of Eng-
land (a rurn'un to look at, but a rare'un to go), Mr. W. H. Payne;
St. Andrew of Scotland, St. David of Wales, St. Patrick of Ireland
St. Denis of France, St. James of Spain, St. Anthony of Italy (all
pretty much of the same kidney !) Mr. Heath, Mr. Douglas, Mr.
Marks, Mr. Chapino, Mr. Sanger, Mr. J. Haynes.—How St. George
and his brother champions (considerably grown since their last ap-
pearance in public) are kept in durance vile, and on " very short
commons" by Kalyba—how Kalyba pops her affections on St. George
who " can't abide her"—in short, how—but we won't anticipate—
merely observing, that the upshot is the Downfall of Kalyba, and
the Emancipation of the Seven Champions of Christendom!
Scene 5. DOVER ROADS.—How the Seven Champions of Christen-
dom set out for their respective destinations—" the management
having, in the handsomest manner," made special arrangements for
that purpose with the various " Metropolitan Conveyance Com-
panies."
Scene 6. BANKS OF THE NlLE.—Almanzor, Ring of Morocco (his
own Lord High Admiral, Commander-in-Chief, &e., on his way to
King Ptolemy's Court, to court King Ptolemy's daughter), Mr. T.
Matthews ; Ptolemy, King of Egypt (rather a remote ancestor of
Ibrahim Pacha, better known as Abraham Parker), Mr. Priorson.
Moorish Sailors, Attendants on King Ptolemy, &c. How Almanzor
came to Egypt to be married—the Princess having a decided objec-
tion to their being " bound in Morocco ;" and how St. George, not
having even " dipped" into the question of " lights," runs his
steamer on shore, and saves himself on the funnel.

Scene 7. GRAND HALL IN THE PALACE OF PTOLEMY THE FIRST,
KING OF EGYPT.—The Princess Sabra, Mr. Hance, about to be mar-
ried to the King of Morocco, bat patriotically devoting herself to the
digestive organs of the Dragon (a gentleman, whose prodigious
allowance of jaw enables him to speak for himself ), Mr. Wiellnd.
How this " marriage in high llfe" is suddenly interrupted by the
Dragon, who, not only forbids the banns ; but elopes with the bride;
thereby plunging " her illustrious parents and several families of dis-
tinction at the west-end of the town into the deepest affliction," &c.
(vide Morning Papers).