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

possession.
If the French Government meant to plead that memo
randum as a justification for any steps which they in-
tended to take, they ought surely to have made it known
to the British Government before their steps were taken.
But that memorandum could not have been produced
without raising a discussion about the intended marriage
of the Duke of Montpensier, and it suited better the
views of the French Government to keep that marriage
entirely in the background till they could announce it as
a settled arrangement.
But her Majesty's Government do not repudiate the
memorandum of the 27th of February, 184 d, because
they find it inconvenient. For on the contrary, as I
have already shown, the contingency which was specified
in that memorandum, as the case which would release
the French Government from their previous engage-
ments, and which would, in their opinion, justify them
in asking the hand of the Infanta for the Duke of Mont-
pensier (that is to say, an imminent danger that the
Queen might marry a prince not descended from Philip
the Fifth), never happened; and, moreover, as I stated
in my former dispatch, such a contingency had actually
become impossible at the time when Count Bresson
asked the hand of the Infanta for the Duke; because at
that time the marriage of the Queen with a descendant
of Philip the Fifth had already been settled.
M. Guizot admits the fact of the engagement at the
Chateau d'Eu, but he does not state its sub-
stance correctly. It was not that the marriage
of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta
should be delayed tantil the Queen of Spain should
have been married, and should have had a child;
it was that that marriage should not take 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 of Montpensier to the
Infanta of a political character; and if her Majesty's
Government are not much misinformed, even this as-
surance was not accepted as entirely satisfactory, but as
calculated to render the projected marriage less objec-
tionable than it would otherwise have been.
M. Guizot says, however, that the engagements of the
Chateau d'Eu were conditional and mutual; but the con-1
dition on which the marriage of the Duke of Mont-
pensier was t( be delayed as above-mentioned, was, that
the Queen of Spain should marry a descendant of Philip
V. ;aud that a reciprocal engagement was taken by the
British Government, that it would co operate as far as
it was at liberty to do so, in bringing about the marriage I
of the Queen to such a prince. But M. Guizot acknow-
ledges that the British Government refused to admit the
d
ipnrihneeripclehotihceatofthae
and he acknowledges that the British Government clusecernt o
tof Spain s
coe ought
tt ocfbe
rhc
iol
pfi nye
re-
fused either to take the same ground upon that question,
or to hold the same language, or to act upon the same
line as the Government of France. The co-operation,
therefore, between the two Governments was at any
rate to be founded upon an entire difference of opinion
between the co-operating parties as to the subject matter
in question. But, nevertheless, the British Government
according to M. Guizot, promised to act in the same di-
rection as the French Government, and to aim at the
same object; the meaning of which may be presumed to
be, that the British Government was to recommend to
the Queen of Spain to choose a husband from among the
descendants of Philip V.; though fully and directly as-
serting the right of the Queen to choose a prince not so
descended, if she chose to do so.
Her Majesty's present Government 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 Go-
vernment has been kept, why has the engagement of the
Chateau d'Et been broken?
M. Guizot endeavours to establish a contrast between
the conduct of her Majesty's late and that of her Ma-
jesty's present Government, in regard to this matter; bat
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 to the pretension put forward by the French
Government to compel the Queen of Spain to marry
none but a descendant of Philip V.; both Governments
have been of opinion that it would be most prudent for
easttyasnylatteimneogr
given
the Queen to marr aSp an i prince,
wotn and both
veiit agreed
ured t
o
in their selection of the prince they
t or support whatever to the choice
any encouragem
Government have hMavaej
p )lil of Saxe-Co u g..
isehnCr ourtTwhiesrheefodreto
the
eakme
memorandum
PorrainnaceumLeoc-f
recommend,lajes
y,
presentw hile
and could not, even if commu-
Majesty's Government
;have afforded the slightest justi-
nicated in proper time,
from the engagements or the
fication for the departure
wthheic2hnthheofSpFaebruary no degree inconvenient to her
Chateau d'Eu.
havel9th
July to Mr. Bulwer, and states
order in which the name of
been my intention, the mere
in that despatch,
the Prince of Coburg was mentioned
indirect recommendation
M. Guizot again reverts to my
must have bad the effect of an
mt
Ltd! spa whateverteh
ef
maythe
in his favour.
that it was not des.
Bulwer ; .
sonal instruction to Mr.
h overnmlat
tit el to be communicated to the Spun:
that government
and that it never was communicated toft
thata gdispatch,
But M. Guizot forgets that that dispatch was a per-
by him ; and that, in the very outset o
prince
received from my predecessor, in which Sp
to the British
was named as the candidate who appearedthe most likely
referred Mr. Bulwer.to a communication
a wahnicislhi he had
Spain ; and the fact
-to prove acceptable to the people of
government to be the most eligible, and
duced at Madrid.
is, that the effect supposed by M. Guizot never was pro-