The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-13 00:00:00

"M. GUIZOT TO M. PAGEOT.

" 10th February, 1844.
" Sir,—l have received the dispatches you have ad.
dressed me unto No. 36, and the date of the 28th of De.
cember last.

'• What President Tyler's Message has disclosed, re-
specting the projects of the Federal Government, re-
garding the annexation of Texas to the United States,
and what you have written to me about, it could nut fail
to attract my serious attention. That of the London
Cabinet is not less excited as to this question, as you
cill find by the, accompanying copy of a dispatch I ad-
dressed on the 29th of January to Count de St. Aulaire,
in consequence of a communication made to me by Lord
Aberdeen. through the medium of Lord Cowley. This
communication referred to the opposition which the
English Government proposed offering to any project of
incorporating Texas with the Confederacy's territory, as
well as to the instructions to be forwarded to Mr. Patten
ham, Lord Aberdeen having wished to know whether he
had the same int' ntions, I have desired Count de Sainte
Aulaire to inform him that you would receive similar
instructions.

" The last reports from the French Legation in
Texas, whilst telling me of the • fforts of the Wash
ington Government and its representatives at At-stir,
to prepare the annexation, represented President Hous-
ton a, energetically opposed to any arrangement of that
description, and protesting that nothing of the kind
should take place so long as he should direct affairs.
The language held here by M. Ashol Smith is not less
explicit. Nevertheless, it behoves us to know whether
both faithfully express the opinion and wishes of Texas,
and whether the question of the annexation to the
States of the confederacy, if agitated in the Texian
Cangress, would not be affirmatively resolved on there.
That annexation would be lawfully justifiable, but in
the event of its being voluntary, and not the result of
violence on the part of the United States—and with tIF,
as well as with England, it is, above all, on the resist-
ance of the majority of the Texian people to the accom-
plishment of such a project, that the opposition we
should manifest would be founded. But, I shall add,
that even should the annexation be voluntary and freely
assented to on the part of Texas, considerations, both
political and commercial, would not permit us to view
it with indifference ; and that, under all circumstances,
we must wish that that country remain independent.
" In a political point of view a real interest of equi-
librium is connected with the preservation of that inde •
pendence. The annexation of Texas, by extending the
United States' territory to the Rio Grande, would yield
the immediate consequence of bringing them in contact
with Mexico, .hat is to say, afford them the means of
invading and encroaching upon that country whenev.er
they pleased. Now, it cannot suit us to see that barrier
fall ; everything leads us to desire that a confederacy as
powerful as that of the United States remain at a dis-
tance from the Mexican frontier, by the interposition of
a state, also formed, it is true, of an Anglo-Saxon race,
but still, and for a long time to come, feeble enough not
to justify the same fears, whilst it would still sufficiently
fulfil its destination of opposing the invasions of that
confederacy.
"In a commercial point of view we have also reasons
for desiring the maintenance of the independence of
Texas. Futurity has chances which we must not lose
sight of ; and, from this moment, we might find in the
Texas colonists a progressive element of exportation,
and, above all, a real aliment for our direct navigation,
an advantage which we have not, and can scarcely expect
from the United States.

" Lastly, Sir, for the very reason that France has
been the first of the European Powers to acknowledge the
independence of Texas, and to connect itself with that
Republic by a treaty of unity and commerce, does it
not, as it were, behove our dignity to see that what
we have so solemnly acknowledged be respected and
preserved?
" From all these considerations we must be naturally
contrary to any project tending to the absorption of
Texas by the United States. I know not what the
tenor may be of the instructions sent from London to
Mr. Pakenham, and consequently how far the English
Cabinet inn nds carrying the manifestation and curse-
' quences of its opposition; but I say enough. as concerns
us not to let you be mistaken as to the attitude you are
to assume, and the language you are to hold. We
manifest our opposition to any violent and forced annexa-
tion of Texas to the United States, and even should that.
Republic spontaneously pronounce itself, as the journals'
news announce, you would still have to express yourself
in such way as to make it known and well recorded by
the federal Government, that we cannot behold with in•
difference such an occurrence; and, in the event of its
taking place, we could not dispense with very expressly
making every lawful reserve as to the alterations that
would result in the position and advantages oar treaty
with the Texian Republic has yielded us in that country.
I, however, confide in your judgment and experience, .
anti you besides, be enabled to come to an under-
standing with Mr. Pakenham as to this object, which is
common to the two legations."