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

14•- lyt t ignilt.

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 uricon-
scientious character. A defensive war is comprehen-
sib'e ; 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 RonoLrli of Hapsburg,
the Braganzas, and the Plantagenets, were almost
liable to be regarded as so many imperial parvenues. ,
More or less, the descendants of Huau CArET 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
exhibitions of virtue, with astonishing evidences
of valour. The name, , has, moreover, been
sanctified by the misfortunes with -which

it has been latterly coupled, and has justly
elicited the superb and pathetic panegyric of CuA-
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-
pines?, the social and international friendship of
nations. It is not surely for the domestic 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 mos

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 Due DE MONTPENSIER is in any
particular opposed to the engagements entered into
towards the commencement of the eighteenth

century. The arguments there employed have since

;hen been most signally refuted by an anonymous

diplomatist in the Rational. It require; however, bu

Little trouble to dispose of such denials when we

find the redoubted Plump, Grandson of France,
Duke of Orleans, Valois, Chartres, and Ne-

moors,

declaring

on the 19th

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."