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

desire to determine this choice, had announced that it
had n obje,_•timi if, LC '
and, without direct &apport 4.,e active co-upetut.on, Us
simply remaining passive, the end would have been
attained.
The King's Government could not deceive itself as to
the real situation of things. It took the most legitimate
and direct means of preventing the consequences. It
made an appeal to the free choice and independent will
of Queen Isabella and of her Government. It placed
before the Court of Madrid another arrangement, in-
stead of the one contemplated ; which last was mani-
festly at variance with its professed policy. It was at
full liberty to pursue this course, for it had openly and
positively reserved to itself the right to do se. It was
bound to pursue it ; for the hypothetical case for which
it had made that reservation, and which it had provided
against in its instructions to Madrid as well as in its
declarations to London, was becoming more and more
probable. The Queen of Spain and her Government
have adopted this arrangement. The Cortes have given
it their almost unanimous approbation. The double
marriage of Queen Isabella with the Duke of Cadiz, and
of the Infanta Dona Luisa Fernanda with the Duke of
Montpensier, has been arranged and concluded with the
most entire liberty of action, and from the most urgent
motives.
I therefore fulfil, M. le Comte, the most imperative
duty in repelling with an energy of which my language
is but a faint expression the strange accusation brought
by Lord Palmerston in his dispatch against the King's
Ambassador at Madrid, of having, in virtue of his in-
structions, used "moral coercion" in order to force the
Queen of Spain to accept the Duke of Cadiz as her con-
sort. I might confine myself to a very short and simple
answer, and one which would be admitted by the whole
world. In no court, in no family, is the liberty of mar-
riage and of domestic life better understood, or more
scrupulously respected, than at the Court of the Tuileries,
and in the Royal Family of France. The sentiments
which inspire and guide the conduct of the King at
Paris and towards his own children, inspire and guide
that which he observes towards the Court of
Madrid and his Royal nieces. And the King's Govern-
ment is jealous of the honour of evincing everywhere,
and on every occasion, that respect for domestic ties of
which it has so exalted an example before it. But, I
must also ask with what consistency can the charge of
using "moral coercion" be brought against us by those
who, a month ago, asked us to use our influence with
Queen Isabella in exclusive favour of a Prince who was
notoriously labouring under her displeasure, and was
intimately connected with the most ardent enemies of
her Government ?
The Queen's choice of the Duke of Cadiz was per-
fectly free ; the approbation of the Queen's choice,
voted by the Cortes after a debate as unbiassed as it was
solemn, was also perfectly free ; and during that im-
portant deliberation the public tranquillity was as per-
fect as the freedom in the interior of the palace, or in
the assembly of the nation. Assuredly, neither insti-
gations nor motives to disorder are wanting in Spain at
this moment. Pretensions, ambitions, schemes, and
conspiracies of every kind, have been at *work to re-
kindle insurrection and civil war. At" present, they
have not, whether separately or combined, succeeded in
giving a commencement of execution to their designs.
What more striking proof can be given of the senti-
ments of the great majority of the Spanish people, and
of their free assent to the choice of their Queen, and
the vote of their representatives ?
" Her Majesty's Government," says Lord Palmerston
in his dispatch of the 22d of Septhmber, " rejoice to
think that the British Government was no party to that
arrangement." The King's Government, on the con-
trary, sees reasons, founded on the interests of Spain,
of its allies, and of all Europe, for congratulating itself
on the part it took in that event. The Duke of Cadiz
is not only a descendant of Philip V., he is by birth
and by sentiments a Spanish Prince. He has shown in-
variable respect for constitutional government, and for
the principles of the Spanish Monarchy. Spain and
Europe. the liberties of the Peninsula, and the inter-
rests of general order and tranquillity, find in his union
with Queen Isabella all the securities that a prudent and
Ling-sighted policy can demand.
s, But although the marriage of Queen Isabella with the
Duke of Cadiz has called forth this expression of disap-
probation, it is, according to the dispatch of the 22d of
September, the marriage of the Infanta with the Duke
necessitated, in the eyes
de o
f the
English Montpensier that
Government,has
has just made, and the representations and protests it has
just addressed to u 5.
he King's Government will always esteem it its duty
to receive and to discuss, in a spirit of perfect fairness,
the representations which another Government, and
more especially a friendly Government, may think fit to
make on behalf of its interests or its policy. But pro•
tests must be founded upon rights. No one can be
admitted to protest against an event merely because it
does not suit his views. Every protest must rest upon
an anterior right.
Thus, the English Government assumes as the basis
of its protest the Treaty of Utrecht, and the rules laid
down by that treaty for the succession to the crown of
Spain, with a view to the preservation of the peace of
Europe, and the balance of power.
The King's Government is of opinion that the Treaty of
Utrecht in no wise justifies such an assumption.
After the long and bloody war of the succession, and
with a view to re-establish the peace of Europe, the two-
fold object (distinctly recognised and proclaimed) of that
treaty was : •
1. To secure the crown of Spain to Philip V. and his
descendants.
2. To prevent the possibility of the union of the crowns
of France and Spain on one head.
It is only necessary to review the negotiations which
preceded the Treaty of Utrecht, or even to read the do•
current itself (art. vi.), to be convinced that such was its
intention and meaning.
By the marriage of the Infanta with the Duke of
Montpensier, the crown of Spain is secured from all risk
of alienation from the house of Bourbon and the des-
cendants of Philip V. ; while, at the same time, the pro-
visions against the possibility of a union of the crowns
of France and Spain remain in full force. The twofold
object of the Treaty of Utrecht is, therefore, fulfilled.
It would be strange to appeal, as against us, to those
of the provisions of this treaty which go to prevent the
union of the two crowns, and to disregard those which
secure the throne of Spain to Philip V. and his des-
cendants.
Such, however, would be the result of the interpreta-
tion which Lord Palmerston, in his dispatch of the 22d
of September, seeks to put upon the treaty.
Up to the present day such an interpretation was not
only never admitted, but never imagined or advanced.
It is repugnant to facts, no less than to the text.
Never was the Treaty of Utrecht cited as creating an
obstacle to marriage between the several branches of the
French house of Bourbon and the several branches of
the Bourbons of Spain.
Examples of such marriages abound. Isbell content
myself for the moment with specifying three, the dates
of which are nearest to that of the Treaty of Utrecht.
1. Louis 1., King of Spain, the eldest son of Philip V.,
married, on the 20th of January, 1721, Louisa Elizabeth
of Orleans, Mademoiselle de Montpensier, fourth
daughter of the Regent Duke of Orleans;
rdiedD,oonnPthhe 2ili
Philip, Duke of Parma, son of
sth of August, 1739, Louisa
Elizabeth of France, eldest daughter of Louis X.V.
3. The Dauphin, son of Louis XV., married, on the
231 of February, 1745, Maria Teresa Antonia, Infanta of
Spain, daughter of Philip V.
Philip
2.
v.h e.faarr
The last example is very remarkable; for it is that of
the immediate heir to the crown of France marrying one
of the heiresses to the crown of Spain.
Nor can it be alleged that the law proclaimed in 1713
by Philip V., with the view of changing the order of
succession in Spain, had deprived the Infants Maria
Teresa Antonia of her eventual rights; that law was
only a semi-Salle law, admitting, it is true, the succession
of female descendants only in the event of the entire
failure of heirs male, but in that event admitting it fully.
The Infantas, therefore, in the marriages I have just
cited, and in all other analogous marriages, brought a
positive, though contingent, right to the crown of Spain.
Nobody in Europe thought of making this right an
objection to those marriages, nor of demanding that
fresh stipulations should be added to the Treaty of
Utrecht, in order to prevent the consequences of them.
On the occasion of the marriage of the Infanta Dona
Luisa Fernanda with the Duke of Montpensier, there
is no reason whatsoever for thinking or acting dif-
ferently; since the stipulations of the Treaty of Utrecht
would suffice hereafter, as they have sufficed hitherto,
for the preservation of the peace of Europe and the ba-
lance of power.
Consequently, no legitimate protest:can be founded on
the text of treaty, or on its consequences, or on the in-
terpretation to be given to it in conformity with facts.
But Lord Palmerston does not found his protest solely
on the Treaty of Utrecht. The marriage of the Duke de
Montpensier tends, according to him, to connect the fo-
reign policy of Spain with the foreign policy of France
in a manner dangerous to the independence of Spain, to
the balance of power in Europe, d
an _ to the interests of
other States.
Spain has proved that she was able to maintain her
independence, and to preserve her weight in the balance
of Europe. It would perhaps betray a want of memory,
as well as of justice, to tell her that she is no longer able
to do so.

' She is, on the contrary, more competent than ever to
the maintenance a her own independence and dignity.
She now possesses a free and constitutional Government
—a Government little favourable to the spirit of aggres-
sion and conquest, but very favourable to the mainte-
nance of independence, and W the neutralizing of foreign
influences,.
The King's Government, on its side, has proved that
nothing was further from its thoughts than the desire of
encroaching on the independence of Spain, or of inter-
fering in her affairs. The facts which have proved her
firm resolution on this point are recent and obvious, and
not to admit them betrays also, perhaps, some want of
memory and of justice.
But, at
that thp. King's Government desires and seeks to estab-
the same time, we do not hesitate to declare
lish btt sincere and solid friendship between France and
SPab i. The geographical position of the two States,
thef,r traditions, their manners and religion (in short, all
the: -r essential interests, moral or material), render this
Incindship natural and necessary—necessary, not indeed
to. IL policy aiming at the extension of either State at the
en pease of the other, or of both combined at the ex-
pel ase of other States, but necessary to a policy aiming
at security and peace for the benefit of both, and that of
an Europe.
As connected with the marriage of Queen Isabella
and the Duke of Cadiz, the marriage of the Infanta with
-the Duke de Montpensier is at once 'a manifestation of
the desire of the two countries to draw closer the bonds
of that friendship, and a
pledge of its duration. So far is
it from affecting the independence of Spain and its-Go-
vernment, or the indispensable conditions of the Euro-
pean balance of power, that it will contribute to guaran-
tee time amicable and intipmte relations between France