The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-17 00:00:00

eh.
t lilt

LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1846.

Another instance is unfortunately added to the long
catalogue, already recorded in history, of the friend-
ship of nations and the preservation of peace being
jeopardised simply in consequence of a dynastic
squabble. What frivolity to vaunt the superior en-
lightenment of this generation ! What vainglorious
folly to boast the excessive advances of civilisation in
the nineteenth century ! What ignorance to cant
about our emergence from the darkness of feudal in-
stitutions ! We may have increased the repertories
of knowledge to an enormous extent ; we may have
effected a mechanical progression, have discarded
horse power for steam, hand-wheels for spinning
jennies, water clocks for chronometers, and so forth ;
but, as far as the emancipation of human intelligence
from the prejudices of government and from the anti-
quated bonds of legislation is concerned, our position
has continued stationary since the war of the Roses
and the struggle between the Guelphs and the Ghibel-
lines : this at least, if the jealousies at present
existing between the rulers of Great Britain, France,
and the Peninsula, can be regarded as a specimen of
our political advancement. At the identical moment
when the emancipation of commerce in an empire of
commercial influence immeasurably beyond that of
Tyre, Carthage, or Venice, promises to bind the
whole earth with the golden chain of universal bro-
therhood, and to render wars impossible from the in-
timate and catholic reliance of one country upon
another—at that solemn and propitious moment the
continuance of European tranquillity is rendered
dubious by the personal avarice, and for the exclusive
advantage, of a single Sovereign. Is this, we ask,
in accordance with those enlarged views which
political philosophers have been advocating
for now nearly a century ? Is it con-
sonant with the principles which the wisest and most
cosmopolite of philanthropists have promulgated?
The mind can readily embrace the notion of a war
being aroused for the purpose of aggrandising the
territories of a state—there is an equivalent there
for all the sacrifices incident to a campaign, though it
is an equivalent somewhat deteriorated by its uncon-
scientious character. A defensive war is comprehen-
sible; a war to maintain the dignity of an insulted
nation presents an idea which the imagination can
readily embrace ; but a war undertaken or rendered
probable merely for the benefit of a single family)
however exalted, is an event altogether incompatible
with the enlarged opinions which we have hitherto
regarded as the only ones entertained by every civi-
lised people.
For centuries the Bourbon dynasty has monopolised
the interests of European sovereignty. To that dy-
nasty the descendants of RODOLPH of llapsburg,
the Braganzas, and the Plantagenets, were almost
liable to be regarded as so many imperial parvenues.
More or less, the descendants of HUGH CAPET still
occupy their original position of importance among
the continental principalities—as far, at least, as
occupancy is concerned. After an interval, during
which the French, Spanish, and Neapolitan sceptres
were wielded by the Emperor NAPOLEON, King
JOSEPH, and King Joachim, that family has been
reinstated in its original position—the representative
of the younger branch in France, the descendants of
the original occupants to the thrones of Naples and
the Peninsula. The very name of Bourbon, from
its antiquity, is undoubtedly venerable, it is associated,
moreover, with many illustrious deeds, with sublime
77"-itiftnis.-gse _sari...a_ with _satanishincr_ evidences

sanctified by the misfortunes with which
it has been latterly coupled, and has justly
elicited the superb and pathetic panegyric of CHA-
TEAUBRIAND. Eminently worthy of consideration
as the elder Bourbons are, we are not however dis-
posed to think that for those reasons the individual
advantages of their posterity should be regarded as
of superior importance to the tranquillity, the hap-
piness, the social and international friendship of
nations. It is not surely for the dothestic aggrandize-
ment of any man, even supposing his veins to be en-
riched by the blood derived from a CAPET, that pro-
vinces are to be exposed to the peril of being ravaged,
or that the blessings which would otherwise encom-
pass a whole generation should be altogether pre•
vented.

Such, in simple truth, however, is the nature of the
consequences which may possibly flow from the
Montpensier alliance. For the extension of the
family interests of an Orleans, the peace of Europe
is endangered, and the very existence of Spain as an
independent nation rendered a matter of the most
harassing doubt and uncertainty. The plea upon
which the English Government, through its ambas-
sadors, has protested against these nuptials, is, as
every one acquainted with the mere syllabus of
European history is already aware, one of the most
simple and indisputable pleas ever advanced by any
Cabinet. That plea is the treaty of Utrecht. We are
familiar with the language of that treaty ; the terms of
the treaties of Amiens, of Luneville, of Leoben, of
Campo Formio, and of divers others, recur likewise to
our recollection, and we cannot conceal from our-
selves the fact, that never was treaty couched in
language more distinct and conclusive than
the one signed at Utrecht. In defiance, how-
ever, of the explicit wording of those stipu-
lations, the application of that treaty to
the recent occurrence at Madrid has been
boldly questioned by the upholders of the
Guizot policy. Indeed, a specious article has ap-
peared in the columns of La Presse, denying that the
marriage of the Duc DE MONIPENSIER is in any
particular opposed to the engagements entered into
towards the commencement of the eighteenth
century. The arguments there employed have since
then been most signally refuted by an anonymous
diplomatist in the National. It requires, however, but
little trouble to dispose of such denials when we
find the redoubted. Putur, Grandson of France,
Duke of Orleans, Valois, Chartres, and Ne-
mours, declaring on the 19th of No-
vember, 1712, in allusion to the Spanish :throne—
"We will and consent, for us and our descendants,
that from this time and for ever, we be held, we and
ours, excluded, disabled, and incapacitated, in
whatever degree we may happen to be, and in what
manner soever the succession may fall to our line."
The matter which has thus taxed the ingenuity of
the Parisian scribes is contained in a nutshell.

We adverted yesterday generally to certain consti-
,utional functions which the Ministers of this country
are expected to discharge, and amongst them was
that of availing themselves of the extraordinary
powers constitutionally vested in them, by virtue of
their office, to ward off, or mitigate the effects of any
unlooked-for conjuncture of affairs that might hap-
pen to menace the general welfare of the country,
andiwe stated that we considered it a positive duty on
the part of Government, under existing circumstances,
to unbar our ports fur the introduction of all kinds of
grain, duty free. It is apparent that some of the deep-
thinking, clear-headed, and well-organised public bodies
of vast experience and prominent influence, have fos-
tered the expectation that, owing to the indisputable
and melancholy aspect of the country, in relation to
the threatened dearth of food, with its serious and
inevitable consequences, the Administration would
ere this, and without any promptings, have authorised
—at any rate till the extreme pressure was subdued
—the intromission of grain, free of duty, from every
quarter of the globe. But the patience of those bodies is
exhausted, and sensible that the crisis brooks of no
further delay, they are endeavouring to convince the
Government that wisdom and humanity alike dictate
the necessity of our ports being immediately thrown
open to the foreign merchant. The Directors of the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures

dispatched a memorial to Lord JOIIN RUSSELL on
this absorbing topic. It is powerfully drawn up.
They express their gratitude for the meL:.sures of
relief lately granted by Parliament, and the confident
hope they entertained of reaching without material
injury the end of the three yell's, during which duties
were to be leviable upon foreign urn. It is then
solemnly observed, that "the dispensations of DIVINE
PROVIDENOE have, however, interposed, and, in the
opinion of your memorialists, have thrown upon the
Government further awful responsibilities." The
following cutting expose of the " conflicting and cruel
anomalies" of our system cannot fail of its due im-

pression :
" Prayers are directed to be offered up in our churches
to have those evils averted, and yet one of our laws
enacts, that whatever may be the price of wheat, the
smallest duty to be paid upon the import of it shall be
4s. per quarter ; another law decrees that food brought
into the country by certain vessels shall not he eaten at
all by our people ; whilst a third declares that nothing
shall be used in our distilleries but that which would
servo as food."
The Town Council of Sheffield have followed the ex-
ample of Manchester, Dundee, and other places, and
actually (which was not strictly legal) suspended a
standing order, with the view of losing no time
in memorialising her MAJESTY in Council to
favour immediate free trade in corn. We
trust these philanthropical demonstrations will
have their due weight. From no man more
than the present Premier have we a right to
anticipate that the prayers of these influential peti-
tions will be readily acceded to. His position is un-
doubtedly a responsible one, and we quite concede
that nothing short of an imperious necessity could
justify any deviation from the terms of the great
settlement effected by Parliament in relation to the
corn-laws. But that dread necessity has arisen, and
it is now too late, such is the national urgency
of the question, to summon the Legislature to take
the initiative in relaxing their recent law. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, as well as Mr. COBDEN, deprecated
the " rag of protection " which Sir R. PEEL offered
the obdurate landed proprietors, and only offered, as
we believe, not from a conviction of its being free from
objection, but simply with the object of enhancing,
the chances of passing his great measure into law ; and
now that "the dispensations of DIVINE PROVIDENCE
have interposed," to expose its futility in point of wis-
dom, and its excessive cruelty towards the helpless
poor, we trust that our Prime Minister, who pre-
dicted these things, will not hesitate to apply the
needful remedy. Only yesterday we mentioned that
" famine and crime were haunting us on all sides,"
and this morning brings us the sad intelligence of
four deaths from starvation in Ireland. Two have
fallen victims to famine at Castlehaven, one in
Macroom, and another in Skibbereen. Deplorable
facts, these, to go forth to the world, that within the
far-famed British dominions people have suffered the
excruciating and fatal pangs of hunger, and which
might never have been their miserable end had not
selfish laws precluded them from participating in the
enlarged bounties of nature so prodigally scattered
over the various quarters of the earth. It seems almost
a mockery to offer up our prayers in churches, that
we be shielded from the aggravated calamities by
which we are surrounded, till we have first squared
our laws with the true principles of universal charity.
If we would deserve to be emancipated from the
cumulative horrors of pestilence, famine, and death,
we must draw close the bonds of civilisation with
every country, keep wide open our harbours to the
shipping of every clime, and not presume by con-
ceited laws of prohibitions to disturb the reciprocal
interchange between enlightened and enterprising
countries of the different bounties with which PROVI-
DENCE has severally blessed them.

The convention of the noblesse of Livonia, at pre-
sent assembled at Riga, has been engaged for ten
days in discussing the new constitution for the
peasantry, proposed in the spring by the special com.•
mittee at St. Petersburgh.

The POPE on the 7th visited the towns of Albano
and Castelgandolfos, and returned to Rome in the
evening. His progress both going and returning was
a perfect triumph. _ _

A letter from Rome of the Bth states, that in con-
sequence of the systematic hostility manifested by
ny-eatdifilittaci:V;;' 0 I.' 'E
si
re 3 1.
n S pro-
posed
body by a Consulta di Stato, formed of the Under-
Secretaries of State, of the prelates occupying at
Rome the highest administrative fuections, and
several distinguished lay members. A weekly paper,
called the Coiitemporaneo, was on the point of ap-
pearing under the auspices of Cardinal Gizzi. M.
BAIA:Fri had been appointed Bishop of IMOLA, the
see lately filled by the POPE.

Madrid papers of the 10th have arrived. They are
filled with details of the preparations for the royal
nuptials, which were celebrated at ten o'clock on the
night of that day. Mr. BULWER, who had been in-
vited to attend the ceremony of the signature of the
marriage contracts, had formally declined to attend.
"It is proper, however, to state," says the corre-
spondent of the Journal des Debats, "that Mr. But,
WEN excused himself with the greatest possible polite-
ness on the ground of the particular circumstances
which impose upon him the reserve to which he has
confided himself, at the same time declaring his re-
spectful devotedness to the KING of the FRENCH and
the 'Royal Family of France."

Oa the evening before there was a grand dinner
given at the French Ambassador's. In the published
list of the guests we do not observe the name of the
Duke of VALENCIA (Narvaez). Before the dinner,
the D uke DE MONTPENSIER presented to M.
ISTUILITZ, in the name of the KING, the grand cordon
of the Legion of Honour, and the cross of grand
officer to the Duke D'OssuNa and M. DE PEZUELA,
Captain -General of New Castille.
The Clamor Public° states that on the 9th Mr.
BuLwrat returned from Aranjuez;and that before he
left l‘latrid for that place he presented to the Spanish
Gover.an lent a new protest against the consequences
of the :marriage of the INFANTA with the Duke DE
MONTPENSIER. In this note, adds the Clamor, the
displeasure with which the British Government be-
holds Liu, marriage is strongly set forth. The same
journal,. on the authority of letters from Valencia and
Saragossa, states that a Carlist band has made its
appearan, ce in the Mueztrazgo.

The I,oth being the fete day of the QUEEN, the
Bolsa wt closed.

We 134 we received the Paris papers of Thursday.

The Journal des Debate, in a very temperately
written: :article on the subject of the Genevese revolu-
tion, denies that it has ever manifested any sympathy
for the Jesuits. It expresses its regret at the revolu-
tion, but from the tone adopted it would appear that
it is not the intention of the French Ministry to inter-
fere activi in the affairs of Switzerland.

On the subject of the Montpensier marriage we
find the following reply given by the National to the
assertions of the Court organ, the Presse:—
" The I 'resse has noted our declaration that if the
English 3vernment had conducted itself with bad faith
in the negt ,tiations relative to the marriage, we should
have been eager and happy to accuse it, as we have
always do] ie. Neither the National or the Presse
have car to inly been consulted upon these negotiations,
but the .1' resse has received and published a version,
which we• believe to be entirely incorrect both in
facts and dates. We beg that it will answer the
following • questions:—ls it true, that at the first
interview a t Eu, which took place in 1842, there was
no mention of the marriage of the Infanta, but only of
that of the. Queen ? Is it true, that, far from presenting
the sous off Don Francisco de Paula as candidates, M.
Guizot nave ed only Trapani and Montemolin, and that
Lord Aberi leen brought forward the two Infantes ? Is it
true that th is first conversation was resumed in England,
with this e mcession, that it would not cramp the in-
fluence of` 'ranee to promote the preference of Trapani,
provided ;31,3 lin retained her freedom of action ? If the
first point: 11 certain, it has been wrongfully stated, first,
that the .7?r4 uch Government wished to be adopted as

the best .of all plans, the union of the two fnfantas
with their cousins ; and, secondly, that Lord Aber-
deen was t :ompletely in accord with M. Guizot on
this point.. The second interview at Eu took place
in Octobef, 1845. Then it was that the question of
the marri.ng e between the Infanta and the Duke de
Montpens ie: was first raised. Was it proposed that this
marriage sl lould be consummated at the same time as
that of th e Queen ? Did not Lord Aberdeen conclude
his opinic ms with the following phrase This mar-
riage wou Id be attended with fewer objections if the suc-
cession to the Queen were assured by her giving birth
to one or two children ? Did not M. Guizot take the.'
indirect as :Eva with these conditions and in these terms?
If this be ( !ex tain, it is, consequently untrue to say that
the combin at ion which is now effected had the consent of
the late Er Lgl ish Cabinet, since the marriages are simul-
taneous, al Kt Queen Isabella is without a direct heir to
the throne.: f Spain. The Presse has since stP•ttt(l that