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

No. 16,961. LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING

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, 1847.

THE COURT of DIRECTORS' of the EAST
INDIA COMPANY do hereby give notice,

That the TRANSFER-BOOK of the said COMPANY'S STOCK
will be SHUT on THURSDAY, the 4th of March next, at Three
o'clock, and OPENED AGAIN en THWRSDAY, the 15th of April,
following. . _ _

That a GENERAL COURT of the sahl Company will he 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 by proxy 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 TuEsprr. the 30th .111 arch next.
JAMES C. MELVILL Secretary.

NEW WORK BY THE AUTHOR OF THE "NOVITIATE."
On the 2d of February will be published, in I vol. post svo.
rICHE JESUIT in the FAMILY.
11 By ANDREW STEINMETZ. Author of " The Novitiate."
London : Smith, Elder, and Co., 6!, Cunha

Just published, price 2L 6d.
CONSIDERATIONS respecting the
k_.)MAR-
RIAGE of the DUKE of MONTPESSIER, with reference
to the 51reaty of Utrecht.
James Ridgway, Piccadilly, and all Booksellers.

THE PATRICIAN.—A Monthly Journal of
History, Gemology, Antiquities, Biography, Heraldry, and
General Literature, price 2s. 6d., edited by JOHN BURKE, Ecq.,
author of " The reerage,'l is now commencing x NEW VOLUME,
and this offers a desirable opportunity for New Subscribers to com-
mence its purchase.
Orders should be &en at once to the Booksellers.
E. Churton, publisher, Holies-street.

JERROLD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER.
The universal response made in all parts of the Kingdom to
the efforts of the Proprietor and Editor, has enabled him to enlarge
his Paper to the utmost extent allowed by the stamp law. The
addition of one-third more matter will enable the Debates of the
present most important Session to be fully reported, and all the news
of every kind to be given in the amplest manner, without trenching
on the variety of original articles on political and social affairs that
secured for the paper so rapid and extensive a circulation on its first
appearance. The enlargement commenced on the 23d of January,
and being eagerly and cordially received, has already doubly extended
the sphere of its influence and circulation. With such encourage-
ment, every department of the paper will be conducted with unabted
zeal and attention. Published in various editions, so that the early
may reach every town of the United Kingdon on the Saturday, and
the last contain all the news up to the latest moment. To be bad of
any newsmen, town or country. Price Sixpence.

Price One Shilling, with Illustrations.
THE MIRROR, for FEBRUARY, will contain
"THE MISER'S WILL," by PERCY B. ST. JOHN, in-
cluding the following chapters :—" The Japanese Minstrels," " Mrs.
Lewis," &c.. With contributions by John Oxenford, Edmund Oilier,
J. A. Heraud, Frances Brown, Stuart Farquharson, Fanny E. Lacy,
and others; also Notes of the Month, Poetry, Reviews of Books, and
Articles on the Advantages of Life Assurance and Building Societies.
Charles Oilier, 18 and 19, Southampton-street, Strand.

ECRET POISONINGS. —The PEOPLE'S
k 7 PETITION to rarliament 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-72from CO-birn
Ten Minutes after use. is ensured by
DR. LOCOCK'S PULMONIC WAFERS.

From Mr. W. H. Waterhouse, Chemist, George-street, Ashton-

under-Lyne.

" Jan. A, 1846.
" Gentlemen,—One of our most respectable townsmen called upon
mo 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 13 new beyond dispute.
(Signed) W. 11. 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%c1., 2s. 9d.. and lls. per box.

Agents:—Da Silva and CO., 1, ISride-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 has
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.
" 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 nut
of the Consolidated Fund, and moneys in the Lxcho-
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 inaintaining 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
40,0001. 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.

" For 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 paid per week for such
maintenance, as nearly as the seine can bo 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, 1847, cause to be furnished
similar returns, so that each return may embrace the
amount paid for this purpose during the half-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 returns furnished in pursuance of this letter.
" I have the honour to be,-Sir,
" Your obedient servant,
" S. M. PHILLIPS."
A similar letter has been sent by the Poor-law Com-
missioners to the boards of Guardians, intimating that
in the half year ending in March, the charge for au-
-17 and
tpartinstead
tehxep epnosoers.,
wdiitollrbse,
speahirblym"G otevresrn,
rates.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]— A NOY.EL REMEDY FOR
SUBDUING Toom Adm.—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. Mussell, dentist,Carriberwell; on receiving
fifteen postage stamps. Sold by Edwards, St. Paul's; and
Barclay, Farringdon-street.
UNIVERSITY INFELL/GENcp._ Otp JAN 25
OXF J.
The Vice-Chancellor has issued the folloWing notices :—" 11Ir.
Browne, 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 lot day of January,lB47, 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 SCOL for the relief of the
prev distress in Ireland and Scotland." •

THE SPANISH MARRIAGES.

No. 48.— MR. BULIVER TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.
(Received January 10.)
(Extract.) Madrid, Jan. 2,1847.
As N. 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 1 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 So-
vereign any other language than this 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 descendant of Philip 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 Saxe-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) " XKVIER DE ISTURITZ."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON TO THE MARQUIS OF
NORMANBY.

Foreign-office, Jan. 8, 1847.
My Lord,—M. Gnizot, 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 the 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, fbr 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 memorandum 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 n• 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 En ; 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'Lu, 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 prevent government repudiate the
memorandum of the 27th of February, and do not acknow-
ledge it to be a document of which they are bound to take
any accouat, 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 nothing 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 upon
her Majesty'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 theyin-
tended to take, they ought surely to have made it known
to the British Giaernment before their steps were taken.
But that memourandum 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, 1846, 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 ho does not state its sub-
stance correctly. It was not that the marriage
of the Dlike 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 mutual; but the con-
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. ;and that a reciprocal engagement was taken by the
British Government, that it would cooperate as far as
it was at liberty to do so, in bringing about the marriage
of the Queen to such a prince. But M. Guizot acknow-
ledges that the British Government refused 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 e 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, protnised_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-htisband from among the
descendants-of Philip ir._; though fully and directly as-
serting the right of the Queen to
,choose a prince not so
descended, if she chose to do so.
ller 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, sinco
the condition required by the French Government has
been fulfilled, 'and sine* the promise of the British Go-
vernment has been kept, why has the eugagement of the
Chateau d'En 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; but
there is no just ground, for such a distinction. Fur 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 IT.; both Governments
have been of opinion that it-Ivouldbe most prudent for
the Queen to marry a Spanish prince, and both agreed
in their selection of the prince whom they :ventured to
recommeud, while neither . her Majesty's late nor her
Majesty's present Government have at any time given
any encouragement or support whatever to the choice
which the Spanish Court wished to make of Prince Leo-
hiftecsotmm
commu-
nicated in proper u
the 27th of Februarys Leo-
pold of Sax e- Coburg i Tinhee roe fdoergeretehienememorandumh
eorf
;haanvde
aeffouerlddendotth,
eevaeling
time,
justi-
fication for the departure from the engagements of the
Chateau d'Eu.
Majesty's Governinent
and states that,whatever have.
begin
may
July to Mr. Bulwer,
order in which the name of
been my
intention,
the mere
mentioned in that despatch,
M. Guizot again reverts to my dispatch of the 19th
the Prince of Coburg was
in his favour.
that that dispatch was a But M. Guizot forgets
that it was not per-
sonaldes-
instruction to Mr. Bulwer
; Spanish government,
must have had the effect of an indirect recommendation
tined to be communicated to the
governmentel' teh I
of that dispatch, by him ; and that, in the very outset
he had
' referred Mr. Bulwer to a communication which
prince
received from my predecessor, in which a Spanish
and that it never was communicated to that
d the most likely
government to be the most eligible, an
sod the fact
to prove acceptable to the people of Spain I
was named as the candidate who appeared to their.itigh
is, that the effect supposed by M. quizot was pro-
duced at Madrid, k.:,

M. Guizot points out, that, in a passage in my de-
spatch of the 31st of October, in which there is a quota-
tion from his previous despatch of the sth of October,
some words, which were not in his dispatch have been
placed between inverted commas. This remark is per-
fectly correct. The passage in question,
in any dispatch
of the 3lst of October, begins with a verbal quotation,
but contains in the middle a sentence, which is not a
verbal quotation, hut is the substance of a preceding pas-
sage in M. 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 original dispatch 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 correction in the punctuation of the passage
makes no difference whatever in the argument, and does
not in the slightest degree affect the contradiction which
it was the object of that passage in my despatch to point
out. The contradiction consists in this—that M. Guizot's
despatch of the sth of October states in one passage
that the Spanish court was so bent upon one arrange-
ment that, if not opposed by the British Government,
that arrangement was likely by a single act of lai6ser
alley, to have inevitably taken place ; and then in an-
other passage, it says that the manner in which a
different arrangement was effected was by simply offering
that different arrangement 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 information 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 Aberdeen's permission, to say
from whom it came. This might be a reason for not
mentioning the circumstance at all, but surely it was no
reason for mentioning it in such a way, as to give to
those who might be unacquainted with the fact an erro-
neous impression as to the course of the transaction.
M. Guizot 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
from the King and his Government 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 foundation. During the
two months that M. de Miraflores passed at Paris, he
made no communication and no overture to the King's
Government, and he did not address to me a single word
to the effect mentioned by Lord Palmerston."
Notwithstanding this apparently positive contradic-
tion, her Majesty's Government must still persist in the
assertion, in regard to this matter, which was contained
in my former dispatch. Her Majesty's Government
consider themselves to have good grounds for asserting,
that the Marquis of Miraflores was sent to Paris in July
for the above-mentioned purpose; and though her Ma-
jesty's Government do not pretend to have a knowledge
of all the communications which, during the two months
which he spent in Paris, may have passed between him
and those to him he was sent, yet her Majesty's Govern-
ment do happen to know that on the evening of the 19th
of July, a day or two after his arrival at Paris, he had
an audience at Neuilly, and that at that audience he did,
though ineffectually, endeavour to accomplish the pur-
pose of his mission. If the Marquis had succeeded in
overcoming at Paris the objections there felt to the se-
lection of the Prince of Coburg, he was to have gone on .
to London, to solicit the co operation of his Majesty's
Government.

M. Guizot adverts to the treaty of Utrecht, and con-
tends that, although that treaty prevents the union of
the crowns of France and Spain upon one head, it does
not interdict marriages between the royal houses of
France and Spain. And he again quotes certain cases
of such marriages in the eighteenth century, in proof of
his assertion. But M. Guizot does not deal at all with
the position laid down by her Majesty's Government ;
he asserts that which her Majesty's Government have
never denied, but he does not deny that which her Ma-
jesty's Government have asserted. He says that the
treaty of Utrecht does not interdict certain marriages,
bnt he does not deny that the descendants of the Duke
of Orleans are excluded from the throne of Spain.
The position laid down by her Majesty's Government
is plain, simple, and incontrovertible. It is this :—The
Duke of Orleans, of 1712, renounced for himself and
all his descendants all claim or right to succeed to the
throne of Spain, and declared himself and his descend-
ants incapable of aid 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 on
France, and became part of the public law of Europe,
and it was, moreover, incorporated in the law both of
France and of Spain.
The Duke of Montpensier is, and his children will be,
descendants 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 of treaties
and of laws: and it cannot be shaken 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 prince
marry the heir presumptive to the crown of Spain.
In all these cases the Salic law was in existence, both
:in France 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. Guizot, between the doctrines which he has
laid down, and the examples which ho 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, who, 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, n
stood before that Infaantntae,lyin thatreg a
radii
ttoh e t h persons
right
shwho
stood before that Infants, 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 of 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 Ring both of France and Spain It is obvious
that in such a case, one or other of M. Guizot seither
con-
flicting doctrines must have given way ;
the prohibition which the treaty of containsUtarnedchtt"t
against the union of the two crowns on one and the
lse the
same head must have been broken through,
positive though eventual right of succeFsion too. Infantatr.hewn
of Spain, which M. Guizot asserts that aspanisl.'
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 p
esent
pro-
hibition must have prevailed, and so,
case, her Majesty's Government contend tiheat_thtehe present
ipu-
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 quoted by
M. Guizot were similar to that which is
they
been have
v Under dis-
cussion, and, even if it had beenso,_
been unavailing for the purpose o
serve for the in-
terpretation which they are
quoted; because though precedents may .
lations the
of doubtful and ambiguous stipulations,
y
never can set aside stipulationsr which, like those of
positive, anti incapable
the treaty of Utrecht,arecleat clear,
h °omissions of Govern-
or being misunderstood; and
Govern-
ments in the last century cannot bar the treaty rights of
Spain,
Governments in the present day. But if there did
o f
pre-
vail between the Governments of France and
during the last century,
a union more close and intimate
than was consistent with the spirit andt intentionso of the
treaties of Utrecht, as recorded
ascribed
tili a iyn
naortictlleia-t
eoifretulime
strtaenaet)e-
quotld
quoted
by England and Sp
be, in a great degree, a;ibed to the marriagesex
by M. Guizot; and may not those historical
useful illustrations of the soundnessames
serve, therefore, a
of the principle ups usonwehich, in my dispatch of the 22d
that
the
uke of Goyof September, I stated Government
protested against the marriage
tending to affect injuriously
the Mont-
pensierto the Infanta, as injuriously
in Europe, by cstablishi se •
the balance of power n, too in-
the
timate a connexion between most Governments of France
and Spain? And M. Guizot
yearsassuredly does not
forget that, in the hundreictil
A it which preceded the
treaty of Utrecht, twice did it
that a Spanish
Princess was married to a • Prince, and that on
each of these occasions that principle of European
balance was acknowledged by formal and publicly re-
corded acts.
M. Guizot says, that by the treaty of Utrecht all par-
ties abated somewhat of the pretensions which they had
insisted upon at the commencement of the ar, to which
that treaty put an end.
This statement is no doubt true, but it has no bear.
ing on the present discussion. Iler Majesty's Govern
ment are now renewing the pretensions which were
abandoned by Great Britain by the treaties of Utrecht
they are only claiming the benefit of the securities which
were given in those treaties by France and by Spain.
M. Guizot says that England and her allies
acknow-
ledged by those treaties the establishment of a branch
of the house of Bourbon upon the throne of Spain.
Her Majesty's Government du not seek to revoke that
e that
acknowledgment. But M. Guizot admits that by
treaties Louis XIV. consented to the those
complete separa-
tion of the rights of the royal houses of France and
Spain ; and it is on the maintenance of that
separation that her Majesty's Government insist.
s
It is on " the definite conditions of that t.
peace that
her Majesty's Government, in this discussion,
taken their stand, and it is " the letter anti ti)e spirit "
have
of that treaty of which they deem themselves
entitled
to claim the faithful observance.
Guizot, in the concluding part of dispatch,.