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

-41
.7,pq 7 ERA
rifm
H U RS DAY
r iTh 7, DON,
16,961.

MIDDLESEX ELECTION
The Committee for conducting the Election of Lord
ROBERT GROSVENOR sit daily at the Central Committee Rooms,
British Coffee House, Cockspur-street.
S. C. WHITBREAD, Chairman.
January 23, 1847.

EAST INDIA HOUSE, JAN. 27, 1947.

THE COURT of DIRECTORS of the EAST
INDIA COMPANY do hereby glie notice,
Tbat the TRANSFER-BOOKS of the said COMPANY'S STOCK
will be SHUT on THURSDAY, the 4th of March next, at Three
o'clock, and OPENED AGAIN en THERSDAY, the 15th of April,
following.
That a GENERAL COURT of the said Company will be held at
their House, in Leadenhall street, on WEDNESDAY, the 14th April,
1847, from Nine o'clock in the Morning until six o'clock in the
Evening, for the ELECTION of Six DIRECTORS of the said Com-
pany for four years.
That the Form of a Letter of Attorney and of a Declaration for
enabling Proprietors of East India Stock to vote bysroxy on this
occasion, may be obtained on application at the Treasury In this
House.
That the Lists of the Members of the said Company will be ready
to be delivered on TUESDAY, the 30th March next.
JAMES C. MELVILL Secretary.

EAST INDIA HOUSE, .J.a.pr. 27, 1847.
THE COURT of DIRECTORS of-the EAST
INDIA COMPANY do hereby ;eye notl.e,
That a QUARTERLY GENERAL COURT of the said CO3l-
- will to held at their House, in Leadenball-street, on WED-
NESDAY, the 24th March, 1847, at Eleven o'clock in the Forenoon.
JAMES C. MELVILL. Secretary.

LIMBIRD'S MAGNUM BONUM PENS.-
One dozen Pens and Holder for Sixpence, ss. the gross.—
Stationery, Travelling Writing Desks, Envelope and Dressing Cases,
Portfolios and Blotting-books, Inkstands, Gold and Silver ever-
pointed Pencil-cases, Pearl and 'vim), Tablets, &c.; Bibles and
Prayers, in plain and elegant bindings. Name plate engraved for
2s. 6d.; 100 beat cards, 2s. 6d. ; superfine letter-paper from 6s.
the ream ; note-paper, from 3s. the ream; with every article of
stationery, of the best quality and lowest prices.—At LIMBIRD's,
143, Strand, facing Catharine-street. Envelopes, 6d., 9d., and Is.
the 100.

PUBLICATIONS.

NEW WORK BY MICHAEL ANGELO TITMARSH.
On the 30th Instant will be published, to be continued in Monthly
Parts, price Is. each, with numerous Illustrations on Steel and
Wood, Part IL of

VANIT Y F A IR:
PEN AND PENCIL SKETCHES OF ENGLISH SOCIETY...

By W.

M. TRACKER. Y, Author of " Mrs. Perkins 's 8a11,7

" The Irish Sketch Rook ;" " Journey from Cornhill to Grand
Cairo ;" of " Jeames's Diary ;" and the " Snob Papers" in
Punch ; &c., &c.
Bills and Advertisaments will be received at the Office, during the
month.

London :—Published at the " Punch" Office, 85, Fleet-street .
J. Menzies, Edinburgh . J. 31.‘Leod, Glasgow ; J. M`Glashan, Dublin.

NEW WORK BY THE AUTHOR OF THE "NOVITIATE."
On the 2d of February will be-published, in I vol. post Svo.
V HE JESUIT in the FAMILY.
11 By ANDREW STEINMETZ. Author of "The Novitiate."
London : Smith, Elder, and Co., 65, Cornhill.

ECRET POISONINGS. —The PEOPLE'S
1,7 PETITION' to Parliamen; for putting a step to the unre-
stricted sale of Prussic Acid, Arsenic, and other deadly chemical
preparations, lies for signature at all the agents to the British Col-
lege of Health, New road, London. Copies of the Petition may be
had on application.

pERFECT FREEDOM. from COUGHS,7n
Ten Minutes after use, Is ensured by
DR. LOCOCK'S PUL3IONIC WAFERS.
From Mr. W. H. Waterkouse, Chemist, George-street. Ashton.
ender-Lyne.

"Jan. 8, 1846.
" Gentlemen,—One of our most respectable townsmen called upon
me yesterday, and stated that he had, derived more benefit from
Locock's Waters than from all the cough medicines he has used for
the past five-and-twenty years. Several other cases equally remark-
able have been reported, so that the efficacy of the medicine in this
district is new beyond dispute.
(Signed) W. H. WATERHOUSE."
Dr. LOCOCK'S WAFERS give instant relief, and a rapid cure of
asthma, coughs, and all disorders of the breath and lungs.
To SINGERS and PUBLIC SPEAKERS they are invaluable for
clearing and, strengthening the voice ; they have a pleasant taste.
Price Is. 1)4d., 2s. 9d., and I Is. per hex.
Agents :—Da Silva and Co., 1, Bride-lane, Fleet-street, London.
Sold by all medicine vendors.

COUNTY RATES. AND THE MAIN-

TENANCE OF PRISONERS. ------
The following letter from the Secretary of State bas
been received by the Clerks of the Peace in the different
counties of England relative to the removal from the
county rates the charges for the maintenance of con•
victed prisoners and placing it in future upon the Con-
solidated Fund :

" Whitehall, Dec. 1846.
"Sir,—l am directed by. Secretary Sir G. Grey to call
the attention of the magistrates assembled at the general
qaarter sessions of the peace to the provisions of an Act
of the last session, c. 116; to apply certain moneys out
of the Consolidated Fund, and moneys in the Exche-
quer, to the service of the year 1846, by which it is en-
acted that a sum of money' not exceeding 40,0001. may
be applied to defray the expenses of waintaining pri•
soners under sentence of felony or misdemeanour, and
.other similar charges, for the half-year ending March
31st, 1847.

" in preparing the estimate upon which this grant was
made by. Parliament, it was considered that the sum of
40,00 W. would be sufficient to -relieve the several coun-
ties throughout the United Kingdom, and also such
boroughs as have quarter sessions, and in which the cost
of the maintenance of convicted prisoners is paid by a
rate raised in the borough in the nature of a county
rate,. for the charge of maintenance of the 'said halt-
year of all prisoners convicted at the assizes and quarter
sessions of felony. or misdemeanour, • or other similar
charges.

"Por the purpose of obtaining information necessary
for enabling her Majesty's Government to distribute and
appropriate this money to the purpose for which it was
granted, I request, on the part of her Majesty's Govern-
ment, that as soon as may be practicable after the 31st
of March, 1847, you will transmit to the Lords Commis-
sioners of the Treasury a return of the amount paid
during the half-year ending on that day, for the mainte-
nance of prisoners kept at the expense of the county,
who have been sentenced at the assizes and quarter
sessions for felony or misdemeanour, or any criminal
charge tryable at the assizes and quarter sessions, show-
ing in such return the name of each person, the offence
for which he was convicted, the period during which he
was maintained, and the amount pail per week for such
maintenance, as nearly as the same can be ascertained ;
such return to be certified by the magistrates assembled
in quarter session, or at a special meeting, and signed by
the chairman for the time being.
" I am further to request that you will half-yearly,
after the 31st of March, 1 f 7, cause to be furnished
similar returns, so that each return may embrace the
amount paid for this purpose during the balf-year imme-
diately preceding the date of the return certified as before
mentioned, and that the same may be forwarded to the
Lords Commissioners of the Treasury as soon after the
close of the half-year embraced in the return as may be
practicable. I have also to request that the name and
address of the county treasurer may be stated at the foot
of the return's furnished in pursuance of this letter.
" I have the honour to be, Sir,
" Your obedient servant,
inm As
the
oseinmehri
alsal
frt
olyetethat
the boards
r be
ending
daarisnd
gbs eoienfn sent March,
uarar
htSib,i.sa•
tn3rthslht:
‘e PHILLIPS."
au-
ditors, schoolmasters, and part of the miecdihtoijacomrargla-elteaiX:l;7oeCrntoshnieaat
will be paid by Government instead of out of the poor!
rates.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]_ A NOVEL REMEDY FOR
SUBDUING TCOTH ACHE.—The New Stopping Fluid, a little
of which is placed in the cavity, when an indissoluble mass
is formed, which instantly stops pain, and remains in for a
length of time, preventing, of course, the air irritating the
nerve, and a perfect cure is the usual result. It is sent by
the proprietor, Mr. Mussel), dentist, Camberwell, on receiving
fifteen postage stamps. Sold by Edwards, St. Paul's; and
Barclay, Farringdon-street.
UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENC E.—OXFORD, JAN. 25.
The Vice-Chancellor has issued the following notices :—" Mr.
Browns, the inferior bedel of medicine and arts, having, on
account of his impaired state of health, expressed a wish to
be relieved from the duties of his office, it will be proposed
in a convocation, to be holden on Thursday, the 28th instant,
at two o'clock, that in consideration of his long and active
service to the university, an annuity of 1001., to commence from
the Ist day of January, 1847, be granted to him on the resigna-
tion of his office."—" In a convocation to be holden on Thurs-
day next, at two o'clock, it will be proposed to grant from
the university chest the sum of 5001. for the relief of the
prETailiDg distress in Ireland and Scotland."

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.

No. 48.— MR. BULWER TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.
(Received January 10.)
(Extract.) Madrid, Jan. 2,1847.
As M. Guizot mentions my name in his note to Count
Jarnac of the 22d of November last, and it might be thought,
from the text of his remarks, that I had countenanced, at
the time to which he alludes, a marriage of the Queen of
Spain with Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg, I think it as well
to inclose to your Lordship the copy of a letter which I re-
ceived from Isturitz, to whom I wrote at that period, on
learning that some such accusation had been made against
me by the French Government to Lord Aberdeen.
Inclosure (Translation).
" Madrid) June 5, 1846.

My dear Friend,—l have received your letter of Yester-
day, in which you request me to tell you whether you have
ever held to me upon the subject of the marriage of my Sc.-
vereign any other language than this lily Government
regards the marriage of the Queen of Spain as' a question
purely Spanish ; it acknowledges the independence of Spain in
this matter; but it would prefer a kfescendant of V.,
if such a husband were agreeable to the Queen of Spain and
to her nation. It has no desire for a marriage with a Prince.
of Sake-Coburg, no interest in such a marriage, which might
even prove an embarrassment to it.'

"-I am, happy to bear witness to the correctness of these
words, and hasten to renew to you the assurance of my most
friendly esteem.
(Signed) " XAVIER DE ISTURITZ."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON TO THE MARQUIS OF

NORMANBY.

Foreign-office, Jan. 8, 1847.
My Lord,—M. Guizot, towards the conclusion of his dis-
patch of the 22d of November, to Count Jarnac, on the ques-
tion of the Spanish marriages, says that that dispatch was
intended to close the discussion between th• two Govern-
ments. .As far as regards the balance of argument upon the
matters at issue. her Majesty's Government would willingly
have consented that this should be, tor they find in that
dispatch no answer to the statements which it professes to
combat ; but, nevertheless, there are some passages in it
which necessarily call for a few observations in reply.
M. Guizot, in the beginning of his dispatch, while adverting
to the engagements of the Chateau d'Eu, and to the memoran-
dum of the 27th of February, 1846, accuses her Majesty's
Government of inconsistency, in appealing to those engage-
ments on the one hand, and in disclaiming any knowledge
of that memorar*m on the other; and with reference to
my assertion, that there is in the Foreign-office no trace of
the memorandum of the 27th of February, he says that he
might ask Whether there is in the Foreign•office any trace of
the engagements taken at the Chateau d'Eu, and that he
might express surprise that so much knowledge is professed
of engagements of which no official proof is produced; while,
at the same time, the absence of official record is made the
ground for repudiating facts and documents which are found
to be inconvenient.

Now, in answer to this, it is sufficient to say, that the facts
are such as were stated in my former dsipatch ; that her
Majesty's government had a knowledge of the engagements
at Eu ; but had not, until after the marriages were declared,
any knowledge of the memorandum of the 27th of February
and if M. Guizot will only bring to mind the circumstances
connected with the engagements of the Chateau d'Eu, he
will easily see, that her Majesty's present government might
acquire a knowledge of these engagements without the aid
of any record in the Foreign-office.

But if her Majesty's present government repudiate the
memorandum of the 27th of Febtusry, and do not acknow-
ledge it to be a document of which they are bound to take
any account, it is not, as M. Guizot asserts, because that
document is found by them to be inconvenient.
Her Majesty's Government repudiate that memorandum,
as in any degree binding upon them, for two reasons. First,
because it assumes rights, and puts forward pretensions, in
which her Majesty's Government could not have acquiesced,
whatever might have been the time at which that memo-
randum might have been communicated to them ; and se-
condly, because, even if it had contained nuthing to which
in principle her Majesty's Government could have objected,
it was neither produced nor mentioned to them until after
the event had happened, with respect to which it professed
.to be a warning; and I must observe that no justification
is even attempted 'in M. Guizot's dispatch, .for the endea-
vour which has been made to fasten retrospectively tpon
her Majes y's present Government an obligation arising out
of a memorandum, of which no knowledge Was given to
them at the proper• time by those who had it in their
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 mausaaAndum could not have been produced
without raising a•discussion about the intended marriage
of the Duke of Montpensier, and it suited bett©r the
views of the Fr such Government to keep that marriage
entirely in the b sckground till they could announce it as
a settled arrangement.
But her Majesty's Government do not repudiate the
memorandum of the 27th of February, 1846, because
they find it inconvenient. For on the contrary, as I
have already shown, the contingercy 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-
pnsier (that is to say, an imminent danger that the
Queen might marry a prince not descended from Philip
the Filth), 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 Pnilip 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 until 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 mu.tual; but the con-
dition on which the marriage of the Duke of Mont-
pensier was tL be delayed as above-mentioned, was, that
the Queen of Spain should marry a descendant of Philip
V.;and 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 aV3out the marriage
of the Queen to such a prince. But M. Guizot acknow-
ledges that the British Government reused to admit the
principle, that the Queen of Spain ought to be confined
in her choice of a consort to a descendant of Philip. V.,
and he acknowledges that the British Government 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 qurstion. But, nevertheless, the I3eitish 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 husban4l 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.
Mjestv's press nt Government are unable either
to admit or to deny that any such engretleinent wa' 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 Frenchs Government his
been fulfilled, and since the promise of the British Go-
vernment has been kept, why has the singagemeht of the
Chateau d'Eu been broken?
M. Guiz.)t 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; but
there is no just ground for such a distinction. For both
Governments have pursued in this matter the same
course; both Governments have held exactly the same
language, as 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 prude et for
the Queen to marry a Spanish prince, e.nd both e.greeel
in their selection of the prince whom they ventured to
recommend, while neither her Majesty's late nor her
llajesty's present Government have at any time given
any encouragement or support whatever
twohniataekv,e,roftio,rtihnece choice
which the Spanish Court wished Therefore
the
I :ltt itou Ih
commu-
nicated
f
ef til es nh
no
ro degree
could
justi-
fication for the departure the 27th of February
ts to my dispatch of the loth
r
Guizot again reverts Leo-
pold
Majesty'sC a
t oe af
uiS n:GxEeouve.e propercr bn
um
time,r
eg
Government;
t he
anda
fvreo from afforded
be engagementst h e slightest.
been my intention, the mere order in which the name of
the Prince of Coburg was mentioned in that dispatch,
indirect recommendation
must have had the efivet of an
July to Mr. Bulwer, and states that, whatever may have
in his favour.
But M. Guizot forgets that that dispatch
sonal instruction to Mr. Bulwer ;t
tined to be communicated to the Spanish government,
tgoveranent
and that it never was communicated to
of that dispatch,
aptaittch vas was
not a e
per-
by pd--
by him ; and that, in the very outset
referred Mr. Bulwer to a communication which
received from my predecessor, in which a Spatlih
likely
and the
fact
government to be the most eligible, and the most
to prove acceptable to the people of Spain ;
is, that the effect supposed by M. Guixot never was pro
duced at Madrid. he hurl
was mimed as the candidate who appeared to the B ri tis h

' M. Ge.z)t points out, that,
in a pa!sage iu my de-
spatch of the Slat of Oct ber,• in which there is a quota-
' tion from his previous d-spatch of the sth of October,
some words, which were not in his dispatch have been
question,: in my
plaCed• between inverted commas. This remark is per-
fectly correct. The passage in
of the 31st •of October, begins with a verbal quotation,
but contains' in the middle a..-sentence, which is not a
dispatch
verbal quotation, but is the srhstanct; of a preceding pas-
sage in ill.. Guizot's dispatch from Which I was quoting;
and the inverted commas; were inadvertently carried on,.
so .as to include the middle sentence. The inverted
commas ought- to stop at the words "state of things,"
and should-not begin again till the words " consequently
the french government resorted at Madrid."
I have to instruct your Excellency to correct this
error of punctuation in the originaldispatch in the ar-
chives of your embassy ; and perhaps, M. Guizot will
have the'goodness to do the same by the copy which was
delivered to him.
But this correttion in the punctuation of the passage
makes no difference whatever in the argument, and. does
affect in the slightest degre ct the contradiction which
it waf. the object of that passage in niy despatch to point
our. Toe contradiction consists in this—that M. Gnizot's
despatch of the- sth of October states id one page.:
that the Spanish court was sohtnt noon one arrtlnge--
meet that, if not , opposed by the Britfsh 'Government,
that arrangement was likely by
a single act of laigser
aller, to .haVe inevitably taken place ; and then in an-
other pas-sage, it says that the manner in which a
different arrangement was effected was by simply offering
that different arrangiment 'to the free choice and inde-
pendent will of that very same court.
M. Guizot acknowledges that it was from Lord Aber-
deen that he received the first informatien of the over-
ture made in May last by the court of Madrid to the
Duke of Saxe Coburg. But he states that,
as . the communication from Lord Aberdeen was
confidential, he did not think himself at liberty,
without Lord Abereee.l's permission, :to say
:from whom it came. This might be a reason for not
mentioning the circum4.;nVie at'all. but surclrit was no-
reason for mentioning it in such a way, as to give to
those who might be unacqnainted with the feet an erro-
neous impression as to the course of the transaction.

M. Gitizot denies that the Marquis of Miraflores was
sent to Paris in July last on a mission, on the subject of
the marriage of the Queen of Spain.
He says, " According to Lord Palmerston, the
Marquis of Miraflores was sent, last summer, on a
mission to Paris by the Court of Spain, to obtain
frorn the King and his Governm,mt that they
should make no opposition to the marriage of
the Queen Isabella with Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg.
This assertion is devoid of all fonndation. During the
two months that M. de Miraflores passed at Paris, he
made no communication and no overture to the King's
to the effect mentioned byis LnolartdtemPr,aul:vitnhesiertsillitioNnwpae.'s:
Government, and he did not address to me a single word
Notwithstanding this apparently positive contradic-
tassertion,ion 9
her
liinai;esgt Yi; Governmenttoth sciostntianinthede
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 th.ugh 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 inefftctually, endeavour to accomplish the pur-
pose of his mission. If the Marquis had succeeded in
co hi) jbeuc
rt n
etheret foe lht a
vtoe e
gt
ohne e
tleoN eLt ri
oco of l anthe
taoton
Government. Plii3roailnriciesiettohtfehe co operation of his Majesty's
M. Gu'aqt, advet is to the treaty of Utrecht, and con-
tends that, alshnugh 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. Geigot does not deal at all with
the position laid down by her Majesty's Government ;
he assorts 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 Utrech t 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 :7-The

. .
Duke of Orleans, of 1712, renounced for hitnWli and
all-his descendants all claim or righr:to succeed to the
throne of Spain, and declared hirnself•and his clef:and-
ante incapable of and excluded from such succession,
whatever might be the way (and this includes the way of
marriage), in which the succession might devolVe upon
their line. That renunciation was embodied' in the

treaty of Utrecht, and thereby was made binding ( n
France, and became part of the public law of Europe,
and it was, moreover, incorporated in the law both of.
Franco P nd of Spain.
The Duke of Srontpensier is, and his children will he,
descendant' of the Duke of Orleans of 1712 ; and the
Duke of Montpensier and his children are therefore In-
capable of succeeding to the throne of Spain, " what-
ever may be the way in which that succession may de-
volve upon them."
This is the position of her Majesty's Government. It
is founded upon the plain and positive letter ef treaties
and of laws: and it cannot be sheken by quoting mar-
riages which took place a century ago; none of these cases
were similar to that which is the subject of the present
discussion, for in none of them did a • French priace
marry the heir presumptive to the crown of Spain.
In all these cases the Salic law was in existence, both
in ?Prance' and in Spain. and when the Infanta Maria
Theresa married the Dauphin, in 1745, there were seve-
ral male heirs to the crown of? Spain.
But M. Guizet, between the doctrines which he has
laid down, and the examples which he has quoted,
seems to have involved himself in difficulties, from which
it is not easy for him to escape. He admits that the
treaty of Utrecht absolutely prevents the union of the
crowns of France and Spain upon one and the same head;
but he asserts, that in all the cases which he had quoted,
the Spanish Infantas, when they married French princes
brought with them an eventual, but a positive right to
the crown of Spain: and he further says, that the Infanta
Maria Theresa Antoinette, why, in 1745, married the
Dauphin, son of Louis XV. was one of the heirs, to the
Spanish crown. .
Now, supposing that to have happened which might .
have come to pass, namely that all the persons who
stood before that Infanta :in regard to their right of'
succession to. the crown - Of Spain, had died during her.
lifetime ; and supposing that her husband, the Dauphin,
had succeeded to the crown cf France, could she have
been at one and the same time Queen of both countries?
And if, under both those circumstances, she had one
only child, and that child a son, could that son have
become King both, of France and Spain ? It is obvious
that in such a case, ono .or other of Guizot's
vianda_ that either
wa
dieting doetrines must have given y
the prohibition which the treaty of Utrecht contains
against the union of the two crowns on on© and the
same head must have been broken through, or else the
positive though eventual right of succession to the crown
of Spain, which M. Guizot asserts that a Spanish Infanta
brings with her in a marriage with a French prince,
must have been given up.
But it is obvious that in such a case the treaty of pro-
hibition must have prevailed, and so, in the present
case,, her Mejesty's Government contend that the stipti-
.lations and renunciations of the treaty of Utrecht are
stronger and more powerful than any personal claims.
But, as I have said, none of the
.cases queted by
M. Guinn were similar to that which thew under dis
cession, and, even if it bad le en so, h_ould have
been unavailing for the parp,,sa for, w i I they are
quoted; because though precedents may serve for the lil-
terpretution of doubtful and ambiguouss etiaulations, they
never can set aside etipulatious which, like those of
ore clear, positive, and incapable
the- treaty of Utrecht,
and the omissions of Gevern-
of being misunderstood;
meets in the last century cannot liar the treaty rights of
Governments
ia the-present day. But if there did pre
vernal( nts of France and s' -i •
wail _between the Go
during the last century, a union. more close andtlinrimaaitne
than was consistent with the spirit and intentions of the
treaties of Utrecht, as recorded in article 2 of the treaty
he marriages
between England and Spain, may not that circumstance
historical examples
be, in a great degree,
ayscrinot thtooset quoted
poaf
tethheesfouthned soundness
by M. Guizot; and
therefore, as fetal illustrmatviodniss
serve,
of the principle uponwhich, in
d that her Majesty's Government
of September, I state
as tending to affect
protested against the marriage of the Duke of Nlont-
cstablishin too
pensier to the Infanta, injuriously
ofg France
and balance of power in Europe, by
timate a connexion between the Governments
and Spain? And M. Guizot most assuredly does not
forget that, in the hundred years which preceded the
treaty of Utrecht, twice did it happen that a Spanish
of
Princess was married to a From, prince
and
that on
each cf these occasions that principle
balance was acknowledged by forma,,European
1 and publicly re-
corded acts.
M. Guisot says, that by the treaty
of Utrecht all par-
ties which
s'*r, to which they had
abated somewhat of the pretensions
insisted upon at the commencement of
the
that treaty put an end.
This statement is no doubt it has no bear-
true, but
bear-
ing on the present discussion,
ie-eh t;
Her
Majesty's Govern-
mentr
er
are now renewing the pretensions
abandoned by Great Britain by "the t
they are only claiming the benefit of the
te s wfhui c
Utrecht
were
by France and by Spain.
were given in those treaties securities which
allies acknow-
ledged Guizot says that England
merent of a branch
'edged by those treaties the establishment
throne of Spain.
of the house of Bourbon upon
the throne
to revoke that
Her Majesty's Government do not
acknowledgment. But M. Guizot
.admits that by those
treaties Louis XIV. consented to
of France and
tion of the rights of the royal ire complete separa-
Spain ; and it is on the maintenance
eel that complete
insist.
separation that her Majesty's Government
It is on "the definite conditions of that peace" that
ti,
her Majesty's Government, in discussion, have
taken their stand, and it is " the letters and the spirit"
of that treaty of which they deeDa
themselves entitled
to claim the faithful observance.

M. Guizot, in the) concluding part of his dispatch,