The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-14 00:00:00

and Spain which tend to promote the welfare of the two
. iir the repose of Tlif op. It appears to
country which guided by a gcnei ens and
long-:sighted policy has reasons to congratulate itself on
this result.
The King's Government, therefore, finds no serious
and legitimate foundation for the representations ad-
dressed to it by the Government of her Britannic Ma-
jesty ; nor, consequently, can it accept them,. or take
them as a rule for its conduct. We regret this disagree-
ment. But as we are imperatively called on to decide
and to act, we have done, with the free concurrence of
the Spanish Government, what was consistent with our
rights, with our lawful interests, and with the nateral
and pacific policy of our country • nor have we done
anything which infringes on the rights, the lawful inter-
ests, or the peace of other States. We are convinced
that on this subject the people of France concur with
their Government, and everything conduces to prove that
the great majority of the Spanish people share the sen-
timents of their rulers. We are confident that the sound
judgment, and the spirit of fairness which distinguish
the Government and people of Great Britain will sa-
tisfy them that the high and generous motives which
led to the establishment of good understanding and
friendohip between France, England, and Spain, rise far
above this special difference, and can in no wise be im-
paired by it.
I request you to present a copy of this dispatch to
Lord Palmerston, after having read it to him.
I am, &c.

LORD PALMERSTON TO MR. BULWER.
(EXTRACT.)_
__

Foreign-office, July 19. 1846.
The candidates for the hand of the Queen of Spain are
reduced to three, namely, the Prince Leopold of Saxe
Coburg, and the two sons of Don Francisco de Paula.
I omit Count Trapani and Count Montemolin, as there
appears to be no chance of the choice falling upon either
of them.

As between the three candidates above-mentioned, her
Majesty's Government have only to express their .sin•
cere wish that the choice may fall upon the one who
may be the most likely to secure the happiness of the
Queen, and to promote the welfare of the Spanish nation.

M. GUIZOT TO COUNT DE JARNAC.
Paris, Oct. I I, 1846.
Monsieur le Comte,—Before I forwarded to you the
dispatch which I had the honour of writing to you on
the sth instant, I read it to his Excellency the English
Ambassador. When I had finished reading it, Lord Nor-
maaby confined himself to a few short observations, re-
ferring to the answer which, he said, Lord Palmerston
would prebab!y make, and to the discussion which
would probably take place between the two Govern-
ments on the subject. He afterwards told me that he
had orders to communicate to me a note, without date,
which Mr. Bulwer is instructed to lay before the Spa-
nish Government. In this note, the Cabinet of London
protest against the possible succession of the descendants
of the Duke de Montpensier and the Infanta to the
throne of Spain. It declares that it does not recognise
the rights in virtue of which that succession would be
claimed, in default of issue of Queen Isabella; that,
with a view to this event, England reserves to herself
the liberty of taking whatever part she may deem ex
pedient in the discussions to which such a state of
things may give rise; and that she makes this reserva-
tion at the present moment to secure herself against any
future reproach of having kept her intentions secret.
Such is the object and the general meaning of the Eng-
lish note, the exact terms and details of which I cannot,
however, repeat to you. It is to the Spanish Govern-
ment that this note is to be delivered, and it is the
business of that Government to reply to it. But, since
it has been communicated to me, we have the right,
and, indeed, it is our duty, to express our opinion
upon it.
Such a protest, presented in virtue of the Treaty of
TJtr( cht, and of the renunciations annexed to that treaty
(or, mole especially, in virtue of the renunciation by the
Duke of Orleans in 1712 of his c3ntingent rights to the
throne of Spain) is, in our opinion, without and•
foundation. I have told you, in my dispatch of the sth
instant, what was the true character of the Treaty of
Utrecht, and what was the twofold purpose of its au-
thors in framing the clause relative to the Spanish suc-
cession. On the one side, the object was to secure the
throne to the descendants of Philip V., on the other, to
prevent the union of the crowns of France and Spain on
one head. That was the oqject of the renunciations de-
manded on the one side from Philip V., and on the other
from the Dukes of Berry and Orleans. This object,
therefore, determines the true sense and import of these
renunciations. They contain all that is necessary for
effecting the purpose of the Treaty of Utrecht; but they
cannot extend, and in fact do not extend, beyond that
purpose. _

.
According:to this principle, which is incontestable in
itself, and which, moreover, is perfectly consistent with
the text of the document in question, the renunciation
on the part of the Duke of Orleans imports that, in case
the throne of Spain should fall vacant by the extinction
of the posterity of Philip V. (to which it is secured by
the Treaty of Utrecht), the descendants of the Duke of
Orleans could in no wise claim it. In consideration of
the renunciation made by Philip V. for himself and his
descendants of his. contingent rights to the crown of
France, the Duke of Orleans abandoned his contingent
rights to the crown of Spain, preferring to these the
contingent rights which his birth gave him to the crown
of France, but which had been deemed incompatible with
the former and. with the peace and interests of Europe.
Such is the real and the reasonable meaning of the
renunciation.
Does it follow from this that the descendants of Philip
V., upon whom 'the crown may devolve naturally and
lawfully, and in -virtue of rights founded on the Treaty
of Utrecht itself., ought (with their posterity) to be ex-
cluded from it, because they may happen (or their an-
cestors may have happened), to intermarry with de-
scendants of tlxio Duke of Orleans ? In other words,
should the positive incontestable right of the descendants
of Philip V. be set aside, because they may have con-
tracted alliances i with a family which has renounced
its own?

Such a proposition is manifestly untenable; and, to
demonstrate the error of it, nothing more is necessary
than to state iv with precision.
Such, nevertheless, is the purport of the English note,
when reduced to its true and essential terms. It is upon
this argument,. and this only, that the protest rests.
In principle, therefore, it is wholly without founda-
tion, and facts demonstrate that up to this time Europe
has always be,?.n of this opinion. In my dispatch of the
sth inst. I cii;ed three examples of marriage between
deicendants of *Philip V. and princes of other branches
of the house of Bourbon which had renounced their
rights to the tlsrone of Spain. I might multiply such
examples. N :ever had it been maintained, or even ima-
gined, that, in consequence of these marriages, the inca-
pacity resulting; from the renunciation (as if contagious,
and flying [cor nr nunieable] from one branch to another)
had annulled tl se rights of those descendants of Philip V.
to the throne of Spain.
Nor is the proposition more' tenable at the present
day; for the st M e of things consequent on the marriage
of the Infanta with the Duke de .uontpensier in nowise
affects that wh'ich the Treaty of Utrecht has established,
and which, in fi'act as well as in law, has received the
Easusreonpteoaf all n
powl iluersrop ,
ande.
England
twndaele
bovve yearsall, thought
of w
thou ghatr
that
a grandson of :Louis XIV. and his descendants might,
without danger to the balance of power, occupy the
throne of Spain, whilst the descendants of Louis XIV.
should be seatedl on the throne of France. This degree
of kindred between the two crowns, with the ties be-
tween the two 'States which might result from it, was
fully accepted rit the beginning of the last century by all
the Powers of Europe; and the guarantees inserted in
the Treaty of Utrecht to prevent the unions of the
crowns of FIT ince and Spain on one head appeared to
them fully sui ficient for the protection of their legiti-
mate interests. Such is the public law of Europe; such
the state of t' 3ings assented to and determined in the
name of the E Rropean balance of power. The marriages
which have ju it been concluded in nowise affect, I must
repeat, this stf Z.) of things. They add nothing to the
degree of kind rod between the crowns of France and
Spain. They subtract nothing from the guarantees sti-
pulated by trea ties against the union of these two crowns.
aTheyprotestia
vethfeot cannot,ig nodt 1
ol
3dief r
treoesns:tr, afford
h:Neorosensi any Monsieur
treaties
l e andlegitimateComte,o n
the
to
publicgroundread f
thisl
abr
w
of Europe.
dispatch to Lon i Palmerston.
I beg you, &c,