The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-14 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. GUIZOT by Lord Non-
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, ar.d 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
Otrecht, and the stipulations of that treaty considered
by it as limning an integral part of the public right of
Europe, and proves in an explicit and conclusive manner
that, conformably with the stipulations of that treaty,
the children of a Prince of the Howe 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 interest. 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. BULWER'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.

I.l.enraD Bor-sa, 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 634 ; 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, Franee 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, hoe ever, was rendered impassible by one
,of these Spanish Princes breaking suddeely and scanda-
lously with the Constitutional party. Then occurred
chose conversations at Eu of which i.o much has been
tend, in which the French Minister proposed the arrange-
ment now carried into effect. Lord Aberdeen replied
that he saw no objection, especially (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-
sessarily put itself on its guard. It soon learned that Lord
Palmerston, corresponding with Mr. Bulwer, was en-
d. wouring to substitute a Prince of Coburg as a candi-
date absolutely on the same footing as the sons of Don
Fraucisco. It was known that Mr. Bulwer had indi-
evted 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
foreed 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 I.ias acted? She gave notice to England that the
latter was departing from the course agieetl upon, and
receiving no answer, and knowing that the Coburg in-
tricae 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 Due de
liContpensier either to the Queen or the Infanta. This
e4nniunication, which dates so far back as last Mays eras followed by the proceedings the issue of which
is
now manifested. Such are the facts, the exactitude of
w:Lieh 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
goon! faith. Let English diplomacy, caught in its own
nits, cry out against a result which it might have pre-
vented by observing the neutrality egret d on between
the two Cabinets. Let it try to distort the facts, and
to east 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
aga..nst us. Nothing, to our shame, is more common
among us. But let any man of good faith and good
sense, having the facts before him, say whether the con-
cluct 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, Louis PnieirrE
surposses any man living. For instance, it is true,
we bt lieve, that the Spanish marriage was the sub-
ject of conversation at Eu between M. Gum();
Lord -ABERDEEN, and LOUIS PHILIPPE, but it is not
'true that Lord ABERDEEN said he saw no objection
Ito the Montpensier marriage, especially if the QUEEN
s hould have an heir to the crown at the time of its
s, llemnization. What Lord ABERDEEN did
st y was, that such an event would (not
do away entirely with his objections -to
the marriage, but) render it less oljcelionable.
There is a vast deal of difference between " less ob-
-iectionable" and seeing "no objections." Again, it
is .not true that Lord PALMERSON or Mr. BULWER
end eavoured to bring forward a Coburg candidate;
but it is true that Queen CHRISTINA, acting upon the
suggestions of the French Ambassador, endeavoured
-to prevail upon Mr. Bunwen. and Lord PALMERSTON
: to propose a Coburg candidate, and that Mr. BULWER
:;and Lord PALMEMTON refused. Again, the assertion