The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-02 00:00:00

abuse of power has been exhibited by any of those
entrusted with authority.

Madrid papers of the 24th Ult. 117.ve1-x)en received.
The Chamber of Deputies xv.%s engaged in discuss-
ing a project for the immediate levy of 25,000 men.
After the Bill shall have i)-2en disposed or, the Curtes
will adjourn, but will not be dissolved until after the
marriages, at which the Presidents of the Senate and
of the Chamber of Deputies will be present in their
official capacities.

The Heraldo has the following on the subject of
the protest against the Montpensier marriage, which
it is now forced to admit was presented by Mr.
BULWER on the 22d ult.:—

" It appears positive that Mr. Bulwer presented on
the evening of the 22d to the Government of her Ma-
jesty a communication from the British Cabinet relative
to the marriage of her Royal Highness the Infanta with
the Duke de Montpensier. We do not feel ourselves
authorised to communicate the terms of this note, to
which we are sure the Spanish Ministry will reply, as
its decorum, its independence, mid at the same time the
good relations which we are desirous of maintaining with
a friendly and allied nation demand. As we have al-
ready said, it is stated in this note that the representative
of her Britannic Majesty had kept to himself for some
dine his alarm as to the consequences which might arise
fur Europe and Spain, from a circumstance, the even•
tuslity of which is so remote that it can hardly ha re-
garded as possible. Nothing, however, as we have al-
ready said, can be more easy than to prevent the grave
cqnsequencea of this eventuality. Besides, although
England does not behold this affair with pleasure,
tile
question, after the vote of the Parliament, is irrevocably
decided, and we have a firm conviction that this event
will in no way disturb the peace of Europe. The Espanol,
which in its supplement of yesterday attached so much
importance arid gravity to this note, might have added
that the British Minister, after having presented it, had
attempted to withdraw it. The position of the English
representative is very difficult after the vote of the
Cortes, and arises without doubt from his vacillations.
Our predictions on this subject will be verified, as they
have been hitherto. The question is legally
resolved.
If England, our friend and ally, thought proper to state
its observations, she will now respect our tights."
The Herald° is wrong in saying Mr. BULWER,
wished to withdraw the note. He offered to modify
certain expressions in it if M. ISTURITZ would con-
sent to postpone the Montpensier marriage. Both
that Minister and Queen CHRISTINA were in favour
of postponement, but M. BRESSON, the French Am-
bassador, who hath of late been indulging in big
discourse, " horribly stuffed with epithets of war,"
declared that no delay should take place, and Mr.
BULWER'S note therefore remains unaltered.
According to the _Espanol, Mr. BULWER, on the
23d received fresh instructions from his Cabinet, en-
joining him to persevere in opposing the Montpensier
marriage, and to impress
.upon the Spanish Govern-
ment the consequences that may accrue from its con-
summation, and to declare anew that England will
formally oppose its realisation until the direct suc-
cession to Queen ISABELLA be insured.
Great apprehensions are entertained of an outbreak
in the provinces.

MADRID BOLSA, SEPT. 23.—The Three per Cents,
were done at 35i for cash; the Four per Cents. at 22:
the Five per Cents. at 221; the Debt without interest, at
61 ; and the Coupons, at 204.

We have received the Paris papers of Tuesday.
The Presse in the following article admits the fact
of the understanding come to at Eu, and boldly
justifies the duplicity of M. GUIZOT
There is a point upon which the Debats gives no
explanation, notwithstanding all the provocation of the
Opposition journals, repeated yesterday by the Siecle.
They represent the conduct of the French Govern-
ment towards England in thin affair as perfidious;
first, because the march and incidents of the nego-
tiation have been carefully
.concealed from England;
and, secondly, because it is thought to have been
concluded in defiance of engagements entered
into at the Chateau d'Eu, between the Ministers
of the two Powers, in the presence of the King of
the French and the Queen of Great Britain. As to the
first reproach, is it really believed to be well founded?
What ! is diplomacy to be carried on in public ? and
must we, under the risk of being charged with want of
good faith, put England in full possession of all the inci-
dents of a negotiation because its conclusion may cause
her some chagrin? Were we obliged to warn her that
she was called upon to display all her activity, all
her address, all her cunning, to prevent or clog an
arrangement we were endeavouring to bring about?
And this when we see that her own policy
is pursued with the most shameful means? See how
she is using all her endeavours to excite Spain
against the double marriage, but, happily, too late, pro-
voking a civil war in Spain, and finding even in the bad
passions of the French, complaisant instruments! What
would she not have done had she been previously male
acquainted with what was going on? In what a state
of disorder would Spais be at this time! Can the Siecle
believe all this? Could the marriage take place without
both civil and foreign war if it bad been made known in
time for England to have interfered tc prevent it? What
can be meant by the pretended arrangements at the Cha-
teau d'Eu? Was there any one there authorised to stipu-
late for Spain? We shall pass by the impossibility of the
alleged engagement to postpone the marriage of the
Infanta to the Duke de Montpensier until after Queen
Isabella should have given birth to direct heirs to the
throne of Spain, and which would have kept in suspense
all the intrigues, all questions, all dangerous dupes. Does
not the Siecle perceive that these engagements are in
direct contradiction to the assumed conduct of England,
who, it tells us, claimed for the people of Spain a perfect
freedom of choice? What sort of freedom is that
which •is already fettered by conferences to
which Spain remained a stranger ? The Siecle
persists m a belief that the English protests are
neither redoubtable nor serious ; but it says that she
should not be mystified, and that we should not have
retorted upon her the surprise which was put upon us
by tl.e signing of the treaty of July 15. We for our
parts see no great evil in this, and think that she would
well deserve it ; but the modesty of the Siecle may be
spared. It would be, on the contrary, the pretended
engagements at Eu which ought to be called a perfidious
surprise, not upon England, but upon Spain, who would
thus have found her hands bound in an affair in which
she was the most interested, by engagements to which
her Government was an entire stranger."
These might have been very good reasons against
entering into such an agreement, but having once et -
tered into it, M. GUIZOT cannot, without a breach of
good faith, violate it. The following article in the
Constitutionnel, the organ of M. TRIERS, puts the
conduct of M. GUIZOT, in thus wantonly tampering
with the entente cordiale, in its true light. It purports
to be a reply to the article in the Debuts :
" The principal object of the article of the Debats is to
weaken the impression produced in the public mind, and
to exterminate as much as possible the gravity of the
facts. But the Debuts goes further; it wishes to male
it believed that the Opposition has systematically exag-
gerat,?.d and perverted what it has reported. It, there.-
fore' hastens to deity that any comminatnry expressior,
anylmnal conclusion is to be found in the verbal note de-
livered by Lord Normanby. But who has ever pretended
such a thing? No one has ever said that the English Go-
vernment had made the marriage of the Infanta a casus
belli. No one has transformed into a definitive step
the note of the day before yesterday, and the Debuts
is guilty of a miserable equivocation when it declares
that no direct note has been delivered, but that the Eng-
lish Ambassador had read to M. Guizot and left him a
copy of a dispatch from his Government. Every one
knows that this is what is called a verbal note. When
an affair presents grave difficulties, and may be at-
tended with serious cons( quences, Governments, before
irrevocably engaging themselves by definitive steps,
exchange at first verbal notes, in order to leave, until
the last moment, a door open to conciliation. A
verbal note is then always an indication of the gravity
of the state of affairs, but it is not an ultimatum.
No one has endeavoured to give this character to
the note in question. We will even go further than the
Debuts. We hope that, in spite of the many faults, and
the imprudent course follovved by our Government, war
will not arise out of this question, however envenomed it
may become: it is our hope, at the same time that it is
our warmest wish. But does that take any of its importance
from the note handed to M. Guizot by Lord Normanby?
Reid the Debuts' and in spite of the interminable phrase-
ology in which it drowns the confession which it is obliged
to make, it results from those words themselves, that the
English Government has protested, that is has made its re-
se) yes, that it has expressed its dissent, its regret, and ks
mortification. Does not the Debuts find this enough for
a first direct communication? It nevertheless little re-
sembles, even with the perverted version a hich it gives
of it, the laudatory words of the addresses, and the offi-
cial speeches, and the effusing of tenderness of other
times. We have said, and we repeat it, that this is a lan-
guage quite new in the relations of the two Govern-
ments. The Ministry through an affectation of firmness
or through embarrassment, may, contrary to diplomatic
usages, delay its reply to the note of Lord Normanby.
It may have given the signal for departure
without any official announcement to any one ;
but of what advantage will it be?—not even a gain of
time. The reply which it defers, if demanded to-
day, must it not be given to-morrow? What will be
the nature of that reply? This is what the• public is
more part'cularly interested about, and what the Debuts
will take care not to communicate. But let us now go
to the groundwork of the question. Let us lay aside the
note of Lord Normanby, and the reply, whatever it may
be, which M. Guizot will be compelled to give. What is
the real fact of the discussion? It is that England, after
having protested at Madrid, protests at Paris; it is, that
she expresses her dissent, regret, and mortification;
it is, that the Chronicle was right in saying that
the entente cordiale is broken; it is, in a word, that
the English alliance, if not for ever broken, is completely
compromised. Have we not, therefore, a right to
demand of the Government that it shall explain to us
for what grave motives, for what preponderating, and
to In hidden reasons, it has sacrificed that alliance
which has been so many times re purchased at a price
ao onerous, and by concessions so paieful to the
national amour-propre. The public does not undtr-
stand this sudden change in the feelings and the
opinions of the Government, which affects now to disdain