The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-13 00:00:00

Madrid papers of the 6th and 7th have arrived,

The Espanol gives the following as the substance
of the note presented to M. Gurzor by Lord NOB-
MANBY on the subject of the Montpensier marriage:—
"England, after having remarked upon the difference
between her disinterested conduct in the negotiations,
and the recent conduct of France, and the spirit of con-
ciliation and respect which she had shown towards
France in the question, observes that by an indirect
course the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier tends
to create fears which the Ring of the French had ad-
mitted it would not be just to excite, by renouncing all
pretension to the hand of the Queen of Spain for one
of his sons. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Eng-
land then insists upon the fact of the exclusion, as re-
gards the throne of Spain, which has been imposed
upon the House of Orleans by the renunciation of
Utrecht, and the stipulations of that treaty considered
by it as forming an integral part of the public right of
Europe, and proves in an explicit and ounelusive manner
that, conformably with the stipulations of that treaty,
the children of a Prince of the House of Orleans cannot
reign in Spain. The note of Lord Palmerston is so ex-
plicit on this point that it asserts that the treaty leaves
no doubt, and that although in conformity with its clauses
there can be no doubt entertained on the subject, the
English Government regards it as essential that no
pretension shall be set up which at a later period
might lead to an attempt to elude the guarantees pre-
sented by this treaty for the repose of Spain, the
balance of power in Europe. England, relying on these
considerations, declares that the descendants of the
House of Orleans cannot, on any pretension, aspire
to the succession in Spain, and states that these consi-
derations compel her to protest against the consequences
of the marriage, which, on such conditions, would com-
plicate the relations, and injure the interests of the other
powers. In conclusion, England applying to France the
principle which she has invoked relative to Spain, in the
protest addressed to our Government, declares that it is
not a petty interest of' rivality which induces her to
make these representations to the French Government,
and that she considers the power, the grandeur, and the
prosperity of France as one of the most essential ele-
ments of the balance of power in Europe ; but that
France is already so great a nation, and her own re-
sources are so immense, that the augmentation which
the would derive from the eventuality of rights acquired
by a French prince to the throne of Spain can only tend
to menace as to the future, and even now the repose and
security of Europe."

Senor ISTURITZ has replied to Mr. 13uLwEa's pro.
test, but the nature of his reply has not transpired
The French Princes entered Madrid on the Gth
They were received quietly. No demonstration of
any sort was made on their arrival.

MADRID BOW, OCT. 6.—The Three per Cents. were
done at 34% for cash; the Four per Cents., '21%; the Five
per Cents., at 21%; the Passives,' at ; and the Coupons,
20%.

We have received the Paris papers of Sunday.
The Presse contains the following official defence
of the conduct of the French Government in regard to
the Montpensier marriage :
" While Sir Robert Peel was in office, Prange and
England were in perfect harmony on the subject of the
Spanish marriages. Putting aside all personal preten-
sions, France agreed, and even proposed as the best ar-
rangement, that the two Spanish Princesses should be
united to their two cousins, the sons of Don Francisco
de Paulo, in which the British Cabinet agreed. This
arrangement, however, was rendered impossible by one
of these Spanish Princes breaking suddenly and scanda-
loualy with the Constitutional party. Then occurred
those conversations at Eu of which so much has been
said, in which the French Minister proposed the arrange.
menu now carried into elect. Lord Aberdeen replied
that he saw no objection, espccially (surtout) if the
Queen should have an heir to the crown at the time of
the solemnization of the marriage of the Infanta. This was
the position of things when Sir Robert Peel resigned. On
the accession of Lord Palmerston, the French Cabinet ne-
cessarily put itself on its guard. It soon learned that Lord
Palmerston, corresponding with Mr. Bulwer, was en-
deavouring to substitute a Prince of Coburg as a candi-
date absolutely on the same footing as the sons of Don
Francisco. It was known that Mr. Bulwer had indi-
cated Don Henry as the proper husband of the Queen,
and that England was doing all that she could to bring
to a conclusion a marriage with the Prince of Coburg,
and that already the Spanish Cabinet, being reluctantly
forced to adopt a course, gave ear to the propositions
thus made to it. Under such circumstances, France was
compelled to act, and how could she act otherwise than
she has acted? She gave notice to England that the
latter was departing from the course agreed upon, and
receiving no answer, and knowing that the Coburg in-
trigue was still proceeding, she gave definite notice that
she would hold herself free to act as might seem most
conducive to her interests, and would marry the Duc de
Montpensier either to the Queen or the Infanta. This
communication, which dates so far back as last May,
was followed by the proceedings the issue of which is
now manifested. Such are the facts, the exactitude of
which we defy the English Ministerial journals to dis-
prove, or to show that the French Government through.
out this negotiation has exceeded the strictest limits of
good faith. Let English diplomacy, caught in its own
nets, cry out against a result which it might have pre-
vented by observing tie neutrality agreed on between
the two Cabinets. Let it try to distort the facts, and
to cast upon France the wrong of its own defeated du-
plicity. Nothing is more natural. Let the French Op-
position journals seek satisfaction in the clamours of the
English press, and mingle in foreign declamations
against us. Nothing, to our shame, is more enimon
among us. But let any man of good faith and good
sense, having the facts before him, say whether the con-
duct of England has not justified that of France ; even
admitting, which we do not, that France has need to
consult England in such a matter."

We believe that this is one of those artfully com-
pounded mixtures of truth and falsehood in the con-
coction of which, from long habit, Lours PurrArrß
surpasses any man living. For instance, it is true,
we believe, that the Spanish marriage was the sub-
ject of :conversation at Eu between M. Guizor,
Lord ABERDEEN, and Lours PHILIPPE, but it is not
true that Lord ABERDEEN said he saw no objection
to the Montpensier marriage, especially if the QUEEN