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

Madrid upon the marriage of Queen Isabella; and that
this proposal " was hardly consistent with the steps
taken at Madrid by France singly;" since, according to
him, we had at the same time ordered Count Bresson to
endeavour to bring about the Queen's marriage with
one particular candidate (the Infante Don Francisco
d'Assis), and that, consequently, the question upon
which the French Charge d'Affaires was offering to de-
liberate in London had been already decided by the in-
structions which had been sent to the French Ambas-
sador at Madrid.
An accurate statemeut of facts will demonstrate the
groundlessness of this accusation.
It is true, that in the month of July I proposed to the
Cabinet of London to come to an agreement to act in
concert at Madrid, in order that we might give our joint
support specially to the two Infants, sons of Don Fran-
cisco de Paula. The claims of these two Princes, as
descendants of Philip V., were admitted by us, and, as
Spanish Princes, by England; while the Court of Madrid
appeared to be more favourably disposed towards them.
I therefore proposed to the English Government to give
them our joint support, and I declared at the same time
that, for our part, we had no objection to either of those
Princes, and that the one of them who might be agree-
able to Spain and to the Queen would also be agreeable
to us.

I have addressed the same language to Madrid as to
London. Count Bresson has always had instructions to
support the pretensions of the two Infants, and to de-
clare beforehand that we should entirely acquiesce in
the choice which the Queen might make between them.
His Majesty's Ambassador has punctually fulfilled his
instructions.
What took place when, more than a month after my
proposal of co-operation in favour of the sons of Don
Francisco de Paula, Lord Palmerston at length sent me
his answer. He asked us to unite with him in giving
exclusive support at Madrid to Don Enrique, " the only
one fit " (as the dispatch of the 22d of August, commu-
nicated to me by Lord Normanby on the 28th, affirms)
"to become the consort of the Queen." I expressed to
Lord Normanby, and I instructed you to express to
Lord Palmerston, my astonishment at this exclusive de-
signation of Don Enrique, and the impossibility of our
uniting in it, for we had always said, and we persist in
saying, that either of the two Infants was agree-
able to us; that it was for the Queen of Spain to decide
between them, and that we were ready to approve of
her choice, upon whichsoever of them it might fall.
It can be matter of surprise to no one that our ac-
ceptance of both the Infants as candidates should have
turned out to be for the special advantage of the elder of
them, Don Francisco d'Assis. That Prince was occupy-
ing a becoming and honourable position in Spain, and
observing towards the Queen, her Government, and the
Queen Mother a perfectly respectful line of conduct. The
Infante Don Enrique had not taken means so well fitted to
the attainment of his end. When he passed through
Paris the King himself had given him his advice on this
subject; he had reminded him where his place, his
duty, and his best prospects of success were to
be found, and had offered to use his endeavours to
reinstate him in the position he bad lost at Madrid. The
Infante did not follow this advice,,and no influence was
sufficiently powerful to counteract the unfavourable
situation in which that young Prince had placed himself.
But, indeed, there was nothing in this course of events
which might not easily have been foreseen. There was
no need of private instructions to Count Bresson to de-
termine the choice of the Court of Madrid in favour of
Don Francisco d'Assis, rather than of Don Enrique. As
to the charge of having given exclusive support to one of
the Infants, and of having forced that one upon the
choice of Queen Isabella, against whom can it justly be
alleged? Have we not, on our side, observed all the re-
spect due to the Queen's dignity, to the freedom of her
choice, and to the considerations by which it was deter-
mined.
The Infante Don Enrique has had the misfortune to
fall under the influence of the blindest and most violent
section of the Progressita party in Spain. That party
wished to make use of the name, the situation, and the
matrimonial chances of the Infante as means to the re-
establishment of its own power. For the attainment of
that end, it has contrived and prepared intrigues of all
kinds, calculated to rekindle insurrection and civil war
in Spain. The designs of the party have been clearly
revealed by its organs. What could be more natural
then than such facts should influence the resolution
formed by the Spanish Government to decide without
delay the question of the Queen's marriage, on which all
parties founded their speculations and their hopes?
Other motives, not less legitimate, contribute to this
result.
From the very first, the King (as Lord Palmerston re-
marks in his dispatch) had voluntarily declared that he
should not solicit the hand of the Queen of Spain for
any of his sons. He at the same time expressed the
firm hope that the crown of Spain would not be per-
mitted to go out of the house of Bourbon, and that the
Queen would choose her consort from among the de-
scendants of Philip V.
The King's Government has declared, openly and
uniformly, that this was the rule of its policy. He
wished that the principles by which cur conduct was to
be guided, if we should be called upon to act, should be
well known beforehand by all Europe, and especially
by Spain and England, our allies.
There was nothing in this language which could in
the smallest degree prejudice the independence of Spain,
of her Queen, or her Government. For that independ-
ence we have a profound respect. By communicating
to the Court of Madrid, from the first moment, all our
opinions and views on this subject, we rather gave it a
mark of the high value we attach to those it may enter-
tain, as well as of our sincere and anxious friendship.
The Cabinet of London appeared at that time favour-
ably impressed with the motives which influenced our
conduct, and ga►e us reason to expect that it would
send advice conceived in a similar spirit to the Court OJ
Madrid.
So long as the various projects for the marriage of
Queen Isabella did not endanger our well-known policy,
we simply seconded that one of those projects which
appeared to have the best chance of success.
As soon, however, as we saw that projects which
seemed to us to threaten a departure from the rule, that
the Queen's consort should be chosen from among the
descendants of Philip V., and that the throne of Spain
should remain in the house of Bourbon, were seriously
entertained, we made known (on the 27th of February
last), at London and at Madrid, that if these
,projects
appeared likely to be realised, we should consider our-
selves released from every engagement, and at liberty to
demand the hand either of the Queen or of the Infanta
for the Duke de Montpensier.
We are determined then, as at the first origin of the
question, to announce openly and beforehand how we
meant to act.
In the month of May last we were informed with cer-
tainty that the Spanish Government had just sent to the
reigning Duke of Saxe Coburg, then on a visit at the
Court of Lisbon, a message, requesting him to negotiate
the marriage of the Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg with
Queen Isabella.
We learned, at the same time, and with the same cer-
tainty, that this message had been first communicated to
Mr. Bulwer, the English Minister at Madrid, and had
received his approbation.
The King's Government immediately made known to
the Courts of London and of Madrid the surprise and
anxiety it felt. It received from Lord Aberdeen as-
surances which proved the frankness and uprightness of
his character and intentions. But, shortly after, Lord
Aberdeen went out of office, and the information we re-
ceived did not permit us to doubt that the efforts to
bring about the marriage of Queen Isabella with the
Prince of Coburg were actively continued.
It was under these circumstances, and the anxiety
with which they filled us, that I received from you,
Monsieur le Comte, the dispatch which was addressed on
the 19th July by Lord Palmerston to Mr. Bulwer, and
which you were instructed to communicate to me con-
fidentially. esi
Ido not think (to advert to a charge insinuated by
Lord Palmerston) that the confidential nature of that
dispatch ought to have prevented my making it known,
also in confidence, to the King's Ambassador at Madrid,
to whom that knowledge was indispensable for the due
understanding of the new situation in which that dis-
patch placed us, and who (as was his duty) made no
public or official use of it.
" The candidates for the Queen's hand" (say the in-
structions addressed on the 19th July by Lord Palmers-
to to Mr. Bulwer) " are reduced to three—Prince
Leopold of Saxe Coburg, and the two sons of Don Fran-
cisco de Paula. I omit all mention of the Count de Tra-
pani and the Count de Montemolin, because there seems
to be no chance that the choice will fall on either of
them."
According to the dispatch of the 22d of September,
which has jest been communicated to me, Lord Pal-
merston, in thus placing Prince Leopold of Saxe Co-
burg at the head of the three only remaining candidates
for the Queen's hand, did nothing more than " designate
that Prince as one of those who had been publicly talked
of as a possible consort for the Queen of Spain, and did
not at all mean to imply that he was put forward or
recommended by the British Government."
But in the dispatch of the 19th of July, after the pa-
ragraph which I have just quoted, I find the following :
—"Among the three candidates above mentioned (Prince
Leopold of Coburg, and the two sons of Don Francisco
de Paula), her Majesty's Government has only to express
its sincere desire that the choice may fall upon the one
who may be moat able to secure the happiness of the
Queen and the prosperity of the Spanish nation."
Assuredly, if it may be said that the former of these
paragraphs simply states a fact, viz., that the Prince of
Saxe Coburg is a candidate for the Queen's hand (a fact
which had not, till then, been officially authenticated
and proclaimed), it is impossible to deny that by the
second paragraph the pretensions of that Prince are
admitted in the same manner, and to the same extent,
as. those of the Infants, sons of Don Francisco de Paula;
that no objection was raised to the one any more than.
to the others ; and that thus all three are mentioned,
for the first time, with equal and indiscriminating appro-
bation.

We might, perhaps, be justified in remarking that this
is an implied recommendation--an indirect manner of
reaching' the end which was 'not deemed expedient to
pursue directly. " Good fai'„h," says Lord Palmerston,
in his diqatch of the 22d. of September, " requires that
what has been relinquished in one way should not be
sought after in another." To this principle the King's
Government entirely assents.
Ad mitting that Lord. Palmerston did not intend to

prope ,se or Co recomme'Ad hince—Lopold of Coburg, he
will c ertainly admit tbat he said nothing calculated to
induc:e him to withdraw his pretensions, or to discourage
the /)roject of the Spanish Government. Now we may
ask, what would have happened, if the Court of Madrid,
relyi..ng on the language which (after the dispatch of the
19th of July) Mr. Bulwer would undoubtedly have held,
had persisted in the offer it made to that Prince ? It
migl tit have been said that this was the unbiassed choice,
the free will, of the -Queen of Spain and her Govern-
mer at ; the terms of the dispatch of the 18th of July, ire
wl ch the English Government; though disclaiming any •