The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-15 00:00:00

_,"~

'~ ~. -

~~

~Y ~ C..y

Ambassador at Paris; and I hare forai'*44l in all
my conversations with him,- of the;.,., ' • 1, „e
should pursue, if a Prince not dpsCeri hail) V.
(and especially if the Prince Lei. 1141 ctil; :10bourg),
should offer himself, with a pro: poet m st:(.:.6ss, as a can-
didate for the hand of the Queen of Spain The Pug-
lish Government, therefore, was fully apurised of the
reservations annexed to our enge.geunnts, -and of the
concurrence which we expected from it.
It told us, I admit, that it could not adopt the prin-
ciple of our policy; and that in respcct to this question
it could not place itself in our position, or hold our lan-
guage, or pursue our line of conduct. It mulled us,
however, that it would act in the same spirit and pursue
the same obj(et. Nor was there in this conduct of the
two Governments anything in the nature of a bargain.
It was, on both sides, a conduct perfectly rational, unre-
served, and sincere. We constantly relied on its conti-
nuance.

According to Lord Palmerston, the Marquis of Mira-
gores, during the last summer, was 'sent en a mission to
Paris by the Court of Spain, for the purp ,se of persuad-
ing the King and his Gov( rnment to sequiesee in the
marriage of Queen Isabella with the Prince, of Coburg.
This assertion is entirely groundless. During the two
months which he passed in Paris, the Marquis of Mira-
flores never made to the King's Government cloy come
munication or overture of the purport indicated by Lord
Palmerston; nor did he ever address to me a single word
to that effect.
I pointed out, in my dispatch of the sth of Wain'
last, that the placing Prince Leopold at the head of the
three candidates for the hand of Queen Isabella was
calculated to produce the Effect of an indirect recommen-
dation of that Prince. I then added, " admitting that
Lord Palmerston did not intend to propose .or to is com-
mend the Prince of Coburg, he would certainly acknow-
ledge himself that he said nothing to induce him to
withdraw his pretensions, or to discourage the. Spanish
Government from persisting in its designs."
Lord Palmerston entirely mistakes the meaning of this
sentence. "M. Guizot," he says, "directly admits that
her Majesty's Government had no intention to put for-
ward or to recommend Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg;
that admission is an acknowledgment of the exact truth."
The intention of Lord Palmerston to recommend
Prince Leopold, of Coburg, by his instructions of the
19th of July I neither admitted nor contested. It is
not the intentions, but the effects, which it is my pro-
vince and my duty to determine. I endeavoured to
show the effect which these instructions would naturally
produce at Madrid, even admitting hypothetically that
Lord Palmerston did not intend to put forward or to
recommend that Prince.
Proceeding to discuss what I said to ycu (in my dis--
patch of the sth of October) on the effect of his instruc-
tions of the 19th of July, at Madrid, .Lord Palmerston
quotes, as if it were extracted verbatim from my dis.
patch, the following passage :—(I place his quotation,
and the passage in my dispatch, side by side.)
LITERAL TRANSLATION OF TRANSLATED QUOTATION
IX-
THE ORIGINAL TEXT. SERTED IN THE ENGLISH
DOCUMENT.
" The French Government "The french, Government
could not be mistaken as to was unalile.to deseive itself
this state of things. In order as to-the state of things"' and
to obviate its consequences, saw thatithere' saris; en the
it resorted at Madrid to the part of the Spanish Court,
most direct and most legiti- se strong a desire for the
mate means, and appealed to Coburg alliance, that, if the
the free choice and inde- British Government should
pendent will of Queen Ise- make no active opposition to
belle and of her Government. it, and should remain only
By tile side of the combine- passive in the matter, that
tion which was being par- marriage would certainly be
sued in evident opposition to concluded;' and that, copse-
its policy, it placed and of- quently, the French Govern-
fered a different combination. meat resorted at Madrid to
It had a right to ao so, the most direct and most
having openly and positively legitimate means, and ap-
made a reservation of that pealed to the free choice and
right to itself'. It was its independent will of the
duty to do so, for the con- Queen and of her Govern-
tingency in view of which meat, to bring about. a dif-
that reservation had been ferent arrangement. By the
made, and which the French side of a combination which
Government had foreseen in was being pursued evidently
its instructions sent to Ma- in opposition to the policy of
drid, as well as in its declare- the French Goveriiinent,
tions in London, became that Government (says M.
more and more imminent. Guizsat) offered a different
This combination the Queen combination, and this latter
of Spain and her Government one was accepted by the
have accepted." Queen and her Government."
- 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
production 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
confidential and private communication, I felt
uncertain whether it e ould be egrceable to Lord Aler-
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, on this
occasion, ns on many others, be 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 instruct,cl 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 wo 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, provided, however, that the
Queen gave her band to one of the descendants of
Philip V., and tint the English Government aided
us in bringing about that re.ailt. The King's povern-
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 shun!.
taneous marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with
the Infanta. This proposal it rejected. In May, 1846,
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 shalihl
for ever separated ; that every Prince of th%1t0i.3.7.1:
Family of either country, together with althis desee d I
the throne
shall be fur ever excluded from succeeding
shall take take
effect
of the other ; and that this exclusion
. hal
of these principles, the perpetual separa-
tionn
I have fully admitted. It does
whTahteeveir.orttrhenature of their title to suchs
suecessio
of the, two Crowns,
such
marriages ate to be
not, hovvever, to ' llow from this principle, that marriages
issuingan from
e e and Spain
pro
are to lose .those rights to the Spanish Crown which
bethwieleiinteiti the royal
,or-that
Dousesprin c es oft
may accrue to them as descendants of Philip V. IN hiist
I admit the principle, I maintain that the inference
(e whiducih c nobody
itin Lurope ever thought of before) is not
deducible fro m .
cited
iasn dt,
1)1\1.
smgige
thi
et r have
in
ti,nuurlotippelieddu)r,
ntgo
I will only reiterate one of the facts which I have al-
ready
that
l
i)roz
the entire course of the last century.
In 1721 Louis 1., King of Spain, and awl of Plii!ip V.,
married Madeinoiclle de Monipensier, daughter of the
Regent, Duke of ()cleans, the very Prince who had
signed, in 1712, the renunciation, by the Or!eins branch,
01 its eventual sights to the Spanish throne. •
New, if Louis I. had had children, a grandson cf the
Regent would have ascended the Spanish throne; and in
presence of this fact, which would have happetted in the
lifetime of the parties who signed the Treaty of Utrecht,
what a ould have become of the inferencri drawn from it
by Lord Palmerston?
"But, admitting (says he, in his dispatch of the 31st
i,f October) that there were cases in which the stipula-
tions of Utrecht had been overlooked, the fact of their
-having b: en 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 of Asturias,
who was afterwards Icing of Spain, under the name of
Charles IV. Ferdinand VII., King of Spain, was, there-
fore a great grandson of Louis XV., and his daughter,