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

subject of the Montpensier marriage between the
British and the French Governments:—
" We receive from London information fully confirm-
ing the views which we published yesterday of the pre-
sentation of a second note by the Ambassador of Eng-
land to M. Guizot. The communications which had
been made both to the Cabinet of Madrid and that of
Paris, in the name of the Government of Great Britain,
before the departure of the Duke de Montpensier, had
not as yet any other character, notwithstanding their
energy, than that of mere representations—amicable ob-
servations. England seemed to think that the two Go-
vernments of Spain and France would adjourn the exe-
cution of the project of marriage, at least uutil after a
complete exchange of explanations. These representations
bore on three principal points :—First, the British Cabinet
appealed to the stipulations of the treaty of Utrecht, and
showed that the project of marriage was contrary to
these stipulations; secondly, England called attention to
the fact, that the renunciation of Austria to all right to
the Crown of Spain had precisely had for cause and
condition the renunciation of the Bourbons of France
to all action, direct or indirect, over the same Crown.
France, in ceasing to observe her engagements, would
cause the question of the succession in Spain, to again
arise in Europe. Thirdly, the British Cabinet referred
I to the claims which England had to some gratitude on
the part of Spain, for the services rendered to the cause
of Isabella. It appeared to it, therefore, only just that
France should not endeavour to exclude England from
all influence beyond the Pyrenees, and should not
appear to be determined to ensure by a marriage,
principally in the hypothesis that the Queen should
not have an heir to the throne, the govern-
ment of the Peninsula. It is well known that
M. Guizot at first gave no reply to these observations.
When the news arrived in London that the Duke de
Montpensier had certainly departed for Madrid, a
council of the English Ministers assembled, under the
influence of very strong dissatisfaction. The announce-
ment of the departure of the Duke de Montpensier
serving as the only reply to a diplomatic communication,
was considered by the English Cabinet as an offensive
proceeding. It is too notorious what secrecy surrounds,
in England, all Cabinet Councils, and therefore the
measures determined on in this deliberation are not
accurately known. This, however, is what has been
allowed to transpire. Another note was dispatched
both to Madrid and Paris. That for our Cabinet
was to have been presented on Monday by Lord
Normanby to M. Guizot. This time it is no longer a
question
of observations and representations. The mar-
riage is considered as a fait accompli. The English
Cabinet adds to its protest formal declarations and re-
servations! It declares that the principal and veritable
object of the treaty of Utrecht was to raise an absolute
i obstacle to the union of the two crowns of France- and
Spain on the same head. It is perfectly true that at the
present moment such a union is not on the tapis, but it
becomes possible hereafter, by the union of the
eventual rights of the Duke de Montpensier to
the crown of France, with the not distant
claims of the Infanta to the crown of Spain. It is
first of all on this subject that England makes
her reservations! She next shows that, in order to
ensure the object of the treaty of Utrecht, the contract-
ing Powers had taken a,certain number of precautLns;
amongst which is the renunciation of the house of
Orleans to the crown of Spain, under whatever form
that crown might come to its descendants. But it ap-
pears evident to the British Ministry that this precaution,
this clause, is formally violated by the marriage, and it
is also the object of the protest of the British Cabinet,
and of the reservations which it makes relative to the
conduct it may think fit to observe ulteriorly. The note,
as we are positively assured, declares that the only
arrangement which could satisfy England would be the
renunciation of the Infanta Luisa to the • crown of
Spain for her and her descendants from the moment she
becomes the Duchess de Montpensier. Finally,
the English Cabinet, it is said, express a firm per-
suasion that the other Powers which signed the
treaty of Utrecht, and all the great states of Europe,
will look at this question of balance of power in
the same light as Great Britain does. Instructions
in this sense appear to have been sent to the represen-
tatives of England at Vienna, Berlin, and St. Peters
burgh. Mr. Bulwer has received orders to hold himself
at a distance from Madrid during the celebration of the
marriage and of the fetes attendant on it, in order to thus
protest publicly by his absence. In the interval which
elapsed between the transmission and the handing in
of this, M. Guizot, as is known, gave a reply to the pre-
vious note of the British Government. He probably
offers a renunciation of the Duke de Montpensier to the
crown of France; but this satisfaction will, it is said, be
judged illusive and insufficient by the English Ministry,
and the difference between the Governments is at present
more profound than ever. M. Guizot hopes, it is said,
that the Cabinets of Vienna, St. Petersburgh, and Berlin
will abstain from all protest against the marriage, and
he fou'ids his expectations on the following grounds :—On
the one hand he took part against the Poles in the French
Chambers on the occasion of the late troubles in Gallicia
—he imagines that at Vienna they will be obliged to him
for so doing. On the other hand, Lord Palmerston has
recently in the 'louse of Commons called for the execu-
tion of the treaties relating to the republic of Cracow,
and Rassia and Austria may have felt some resentment
at his doing so. However all this may be, it is certain 1
that the rupture of all alliance, of all understanding be-
tween France and England is flagrant ; that a diplo-
matic struggle has commenced in Europe between these
two Powers ; that the success of England would be a
new and grave embarrassment for our Government, and
that the success of the French Ministry cannot be fa-
vourable either to the liberty of Spain or to the liberal
cause in the rest of Europe, or to public security and
the peace of the world. We believe that the resentment
which England feels at the manner in which she has
been treated causes her to exaggerate much the poli-
tical importance of the marriage. But what is to be said
of our clever negotiators, who have succeeded in en-
venoming to such a degree an affair which is at bottom
but a simple family arrangement?"
The other papers, although they all, with the ex-
ception of the Journal des Debate, comment on the
Montpensier marriage, contain nothing on this sub-
ject worthy of extract.
A telegraphic dispatch, received at Paris on Thurs-
day, announces that the Due DE MONTPENSIER and
the Duc D'AuntALE arrived at Madrid at three
o'clock on Tuesday, and were received with en
thusiasm.

The Journal des Dbats has an admirable article
on the subject of free trade. In allusion to a meet-
ing of protectionists held at Rouen, it expresses its
astonishment at the blindness of the cotton manu-
facturers of the place in supporting a protective

system.
" The situation of Rouen (says the Debat) is so ad-
vantageous, that raw material of every kind could (with
freedom of commerce) be as cheap, if not cheaper,
there than even in Manchester. Rouen has the unique
privilege of being accessible to maritime navigation.
Manchester, on the contrary, is inland. Thus, cotton
and dye-woods would cost less at Rouen. Newcastle
coals and iron would be as cheap as in England, and
labour is cheaper at Rouen than at Manchester."
on the contrary, in writing of this
protectionist principles to the skies,
amneciTetihinengtl:hreleasuvsdeer'sy next article, on the subject of the
commercial treaty with Russia, it shows practically
the utter absurdity of those principles :
" The ratifications of the treaty of commerce which
has been concluded with Russia are not yet exchanged,
but this diplomatic formality will be accomplished in a
few days.
SS believe we are justified in stating that
btwhehetivveneh othereewn treatynations monopolised of the carrying trade
has provided that the enormous portion
France and Russia shall be reduced to the profit
of the flags of those two Powers. A question of legality
has been raised on the subject of this treaty. Without
waiting for its ratification by the Chambers (a neces-
sary condition) of the clauses which modify the naviga-
tion and tonnage duties, the Government has issued
orders in our principal commercial ports to carry into
execution the stipulations of the treaty with respect
to Russian shipping. There was but one opinion on
this course ; the Alinisters assumed a power which
was not legally conferred on them, they anticipated
the decision of Parliament, and the regularity of their
conduct may certainly be contested in a strictly legal
point of view. The Ministers, therefore, must, pray a
Bill of Indemnity, but if the circumstances attending
this affair be examined it will be acknowledged that they
never could require such a favour under better circum-
stances. In fact grave interests were suffering in conse
quence of the :commercial severity to which the treaty
nhich has been concluded has put an end. The
causes of this severity are the following:—Dur.
ing a long period our shipping enjoyed in Russian
ports the advantages conferred on the national flag._
They were assimilated to Russian shipping, and paid no
additional charges. Our legislators were far
ilt•Jin proving themselves so liberal to the Russian
flag. They imposed large differential duties on its
entrance into our ports. They were so ridi-
culous as to treat the Russian flag as a rival of
whom they were afraid, after having without hesitation
granted terms of reciprocity to two of the most formida-
ble navies, those of Great Britain and the United States
of America. They did not even stop there, they added
last year an additional duion the produce of Russia.
The effect of this measure was to exclude her merchan-
dise, after having excluded her flag—an excess of hos-
tility which must have provoked reprisals. We had not
long to wait for those reprisals. By an ukase, dated
June 9, 1845, our flag and our produce were subjected
to prohibitive duties. First, our flag alone had to suffer,
our merchandise still continued to find its way to the
Russian markets through the English, Dutch, Swedish,
and Norwegian
flags, who alone profited by this ar-
rangement. But this last and miserable resource was
Coon taken from us, as the Russian Government, to
secure the effect of its reprisals, could not fail to require,
sooner or later, from those ships of a third Power what
is called a certificate of origin ; in other terms, it im-
posed an additional duty on all mercha.ndize not coming
directly from the country of the
flag which protected
them. That became inevitable ; that is the general law
in all Europe in matters of excise, and from that period
Russia was hermetically sealed against our exports, as
her ports had already been against our shipping. But
such a state of things would have been truly calamitous
to a number of interests worthy of
the entire solicitude
of the Government. It became necessary to meet the peril
by the conclusion of a treaty which would place the two
countries on a footing of a goodeommercial understanding.
This has been accomplished. The treaty having been
concluded, there remained the question of the execution,
and it was here that the scruples of
strict legality pre-
sented themselves. The Government passed over them,
reserving to itself the right to apply to the Chambers to
cover the irregularity,
For our plrt, withoutdenying