The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-16 00:00:00

On reading this passage, I felt, I confess, extreme
surprise; the phrases which I' have quoted are not in
my dispatch; nor can I consider this interpolation as in-
different, since Lord Palmerston avails himself of it to
impute to me " palpable contradictions." These contra-
dictions would be palpable indeed, if all the phrases from
which they are said to result had really existed; but he
must permit me to repudiate contradictions which are no
pri,duction of mine.
Speaking of the overture made in May last by the
Court of Madrid, with the knowledge and concurrence
of the English Minister, for the purpose of offering the
hand of the Queen of Spain to the Prince of Coburg, I
did not mention that I had received my first information
of that overture from Lord Aberdeen. Lord Palmerston
expresses surprise at this silence. I thank him for this
reproof. It is true that Lord Aberdeen was the first
who gave me that information, which was soon after
confirmed by the King's Ambassador at Madrid.
Nothing, certainly, could have better suited the
King's Government than giving publicity to this fact;
since it shows at once the sincerity of Lord Aber-
deen, his engagement to aid us in preventing the
Prince of Coburg from offering himself for the Queen's
hand, and the fidelity with which he adhered to
it. But, having received the information as a
, coefidential and • private communication, I felt
uncertain whether it would be agreeable to Lord Aber-
deen himself that I should declare officially that it had
reached me through him. It appeared to me that I could
not make that use of it without his authority. It is with
heartfelt satisfaction that I now offer this acknowledg-
ment to the undeviating sincerity with which, en this
occasion, as on many others, he pursued that policy of
entire confidence and intimate concert to which we were
mutually pledged.
I must draw one short comparison. In the month of
May Lord Aberdeen gave me immediate information of
the proceedings which first rendered it certain that
Prince Leopold of Coburg was a candidate for the Queen's
hand. He disavowed these pretensions, and blamed the
English Minister at Madrid for having taken any share
in those proceedings. In the month of July following,
without any notice, without any previous communica-
tion with us, Lord Palmerston himself proclaimed Prince
Leopold of Coburg a candidate, and instructed Mr.
Bulwer to express the sincere desire of the English Go-
vernment that the choice might fall on that one of the
three candidates who might be most acceptable to Spain
and to the Queen.
And when, as soon as we were made acquainted with
this dispatch, you represented to Lord Palmerston the
serious objections which it suggested, and you asked
him if it could not be in some degree reconsidered, he
replied that it was already forwarded.
Who will say that no change had taken place? Who
will say that we ought, that we could have closed our
eyes to such a change, and in blind inaction awaited the
chances of what might occur?
The most obvious duty and the commonest foresight
prescribed to the King's Government its conduct. The
Government had promised, in September, 1845, not to
conclude the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta until the Queen of Spain should be married
and should have a child, previded, however, that the
Queen gave her hand to one of the descendants of
Philip V., and that the English Government aided
us in bringing about that result. The King's Govern-
ment has faithfully performed its promise. In Novem-
ber, 1845, a proposal was made to it, in order to de-
cide the marriage of the Queen with a descendant of
Philip V., to consent to the immediate and simul-
taneous marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta. This proposal it rejected. In May, 1844,
we saw the hand of the Queen offered to Prince Leopold
of Coburg, and in the July following that Prince offi-
cially announced as a candidate, without objection or
comment by the English Government. We could not
but regard the chance of that alliance as probable and
imminent. To obviate that chance, we were justified in
consenting (and indeed bound to consent) to the imme-
diate marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with 'the
Infanta. The King's Government has not in a single
instance, nor on a single point, violated its engagements.
It has, on the contrary, scrupulously observed them ;
subject to the reservations and within the limits which it
had constantly assigned to them, and which it had care-
fully made known beforehand.
The King's Government has not been less observant
of the Treaty of Utrecht than of its own engagements.
The meaning of this treaty, and the consequences
which it implies, are thus summed up by Lord Palmer-
ston :—That the Crowns of France and Spain shall be
for ever separated ; that every Prince of the Royal
Family of either country, together with all his descendants,
shall be for ever excluded from succeeding to the throne
of the other ; and that this exclusion shall take effect
whatever be the nature of their title to such successeeplars_
The former of these principles, the perpteetu.al
tion of the two Crowns, I have fully. d it d
not, however, follow from this principle,e
and Spain are to be
between the royal houses ofathat marri"lagoees
prohibited; or that
thegSpanish Crown which
ffincestiosFseriannc from such marriages
are to lose those rightsdescendants of Philip V. NV hilst
may accrue to them ail
admit the principle, I maintain that the inference
(which nobody
.in Europe ever thought of before) is not
deducible from it.
I will only reiterate ono of the facts which I have al-
ready cited (and which I might have multiplied), to
prove that this opinion was general in Europe during
the entire course of the last century.
In 1721 Louis 1., King of Spain, and son Philip
of
V.,
married Mademoiselle de Montpensier, daughter of the
Regent, Duke of Orleans, the very Prince who had
signed, in 1712, the renunciation, by the Orleans branch,
of its eventual rights to the Spanish throne.
Now, if Louis I. had had children, a grandson of the
Regent would have ascended the Spanish throne; and in
presence of this fact, which would have happened in the
lifetime of the parties who signed the Treaty of Utrecht,
what would have become of the inference drawn from it
by Lord Palmerston?
"But, admitting (says he, in his dispatch of the 31st
of October) that there were cases in which the stipula-
tions of Utrecht had been overlooked, the fact of their
having been so'overlooked by statesmen in the last cen-
tury would be no reason why they should not be appealed
to, and observed by statesmen in the present."
In reply to this answer of Lord Palmerston, I shall
produce a fact more recent, and carrying with it a weight
which he will not contest.
In 1739, the Infant Don Philip, Duke of Parma, and
son of Philip V., married Louisa Elizabeth, daughter of
Louis XV. In 1765, the Infanta Louisa Maria Theresa,
a child of this marriage, and therefore a grandchild of
Louis XV., married Don Carlos, Prince cf Asturias,
who was afterwards King of Spain, under the name of
Charles IV. Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, was, there-
fore a great grandson of Luuis XV., and his daughter,