THE MONTPENBIER AND CRACOW AFFAIRS.

The diplomatic despatches presented to the French Chambers have been published. In substance the documents add nothing to what was al- ready known, as the accounts in the best-informed journals of London and Paris prove to.have been in the main correct. The points possessing most novelty of interest turn rather upon the manner than the matter of the correspondence; and some of those incidental points are indeed remarkable enough. In a despatch to Lord Normanby, dated the 22sl September last, Lord Palmerston insinuates a discreditable charge: he is speaking of a despatch which he had addressed to Mr. Bulwer and had communicated to the Count de Jarnac-

" Count Jarnae made several remarks on the despatch, and objected both to that part which related to the marriage of the Queen of Spain, and to that part which related to the political condition of Spain. Upon the latter part, he ex- pressed apprehension that the observation made upon the system of rule which has of late years prevailed in Spain might if made known in that country, produce bad and inconvenient effects: but it is to be presumed that the French Govern- ment did not share those apprehensions, because a copy of that despatch, though itliad been communicated in confidence to the French Government, was sent by them to M. Bresson, and was by him made known to several persons at Madrid."

It has been stated that Lord Palmerston's despatches contain no demand of' renunciation by the Duke and Datchess de Montpensier: in those be- fore us there is no such demand, but renunciations are suggested as an al- ternative which might disarm the displeasure of England. "Such a marriage would give just cause of political jealousy to other Powers; and, unless accompanied by public acts in France and m Spain, of which as yet nennention has been made, might give rise to questions calculated to disturb the peace of Europe."—Despatch to Lord Normanby, Sept. 22. "The children or descendants of this marriage might endeavour to set up a claim in virtue of the rights which they might allege to have inherited from the Infanta; and thus, unless all pretence for doubt on this point were at once re- moved by some valid act of renunciation on the part of the Infanta for herself and her descendants, the stipulation of the treaty of Utrecht might be set aside by an evasion, or the peace of Europe might be disturbed by another war on account of the succession to the throne of Spain."—/dem.

In the same despatch occurs the following passage— "It seems, however, that about the time when these communications with a view to an united course between the two Governments were passing in London, the Fretich Ambassador at Madrid, in pursuance of instructions which must have been sent to him some time before, was cooperating in the employment of moral coercion to compel the Queen of Spain to accept a prince who was not the candidate whom the British Government was willing to concur with the Government of France in recommending."

In a despatch to the Count de Jarnac, (dated 25th October,)M. Guizot indignantly repels this charge of "moral coercion "—

"I must ask, with what consistency can the charge of using.' moral coercion' he brought against us by those who, a month ago, asked us to use our influence with Queen Isabella in exclusive favour of a prince who was notoriously labour- ing under her displeasure, [Don Enrique,] and was intimately connected-with the most ardent enemies of her Government? The Queen's choice of the Duke of Cadiz [Don Francisco] was perfectly free; the approbation of the Queen's choice, voted by the Cortes after a debate as unbiassed as it was solemn, was also perfectly free; and during that important deliberation the public tranquillity was aeperfect as the freedom in the interior of the palace or in the assembly of. the nation."

In another despatch to the Count de.Jarnac, (22d November) M. Guizot mouses Lord Palmerston of garbling,—

" Proceeding to discuss what I said to you in my despatch of the 5th of October as the effect of his instructions of the 10th or July; at Madrid, Lord Palmerston votes, as if it were extracted verbatim from my despatch, the following passage. I place h:s quotation, and the passage in my despatch, side by side. 'On reading this passage, I felt I confess extreme surprise; the phrases which:/. have underlined are not in my despatch; nor can I consider this interpolation aisi indifferent, since Lord Palmerston avails himself of it to impute to me palpable, contradictions.' These contradictions would be palpable indeed, if all the phrases. from which they are said to result had really existed; but he must permit me to repudiate contradictions which are no production of mine." In the same despatch, M. Guizot rebukes Lord Palmerston for directly introducing the name of King Louis Philippe-

, " In concluding it, [the discussion,] I will endeavour to replace it within its true and constitutional bounds. Lord Palmerston has introduced a name which; should never have been mentioned: my duty commands me to express my sur- prise, and to recall to his recollection, that the responsibility of the policy pursued by the King's Government, in respect to this question, rests with myself alone, AR my honour and my right."

The effect of the whole correspondence is characterized as follows by. the Times- " The impression these despatches leave upon the mind is, that although am long as Lord Aberdeen remained in office, the French Government abstained front' the direct pursuit of an object incompatible with the good understanding of the two countries, yet upon the change ot Government in the beginning of last July,, M. Guizot was ready, if not eager' to convert the vaguest suspicion of a tendency!. in Lord Palmerston to favour the Coburg Prince into a pretext for a direct demand, of the hand of the Infanta or even the Queen for the Duke of Montpeusier. Lord! Palmerston, on the other hand, appears to have been equally unprepared either to. promote the cause of that Prince, to whom France was most strongly opposed, or to resin the pretensions of France in favour of a Prince of the House of Orleans when they were seriously pat forward. The consequence was an easy and a com- plete triumph to the Cabinet of the Tuileries; and, no doubt, Lord Palmerston'S presence at the Foreign Office was a circumstance which afforded an opportunity' long and ardently, desired by the King of the French. "As so little had been done to avert the evil, and as the English Government' had throughout the course of the transaction assumed and adhered to a neutral parr, we confess that we think it would have been a more dignified course for Lord Palmerston to have confined himself to a strong but brief protest after the event had taken place. If we were called upon, in the exercise of the ordinary functions of literary criticism, to pass a judgment on the style-and merit of the English despatches in this collection' we should complain that they are large without being vigorous, hasty without being energetic, coarse and inelegant with- out being strong. The sharpness of their tone is not always accompanied by equal acuteness of reasoning; and in the despatch of the 31st of October an inaccuracy' occurs which is quite inexcusable in such a correspondence. That blunder has, we. believe, since been explained in another long despatch very recently presented to the French Cabinet, and not included in these papers. So that three separate cm:11=mi. cations of very unusual length have emanated from the Foreign Office on the NUM subject, all posterior to the event to which they relate, and repeating with little modification the same facts and arguments. We think with Lord Palmerston on the main point of the conduct pursued by the French Government in respect to these marriages; but we should be sorry to adopt his mode of defending his own positions, and we should be disinclined to expend as many words as he has done in demonstrating an evil without suggesting a remedy. We expressed some time ago our conviction, that whatever may have been said by some of our con- temporaries on the subject of alleged renunciations to be required of the Duke or Dutchess de Montpensier, no such proposal had ever been made by the English Cabinet. These documents corroborate our • opinion, for they contain no allusion to any such arrangement. The whole discussion is therefore retrospective ; and as nothing in the existing state of things can now be altered, the enormous length to which these remonstmucea have run is at least superfluous and redundant One single page, which would convince the people of this country and of Europe that the Foreign Minister of England is resolved to exert his whole powers for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of an amicable understanding with our neighbours, would be worth infinitely more in the eyes of the world than a volume of verbose recrimination. The facts are orr our side; but the higher tone in this controversy mast be sought in the de- spatches of our antagonist; and Lord Palmerston has not made up for the ground he lost in the negotiation by the superior ability he has displayed in the conduct of the subsequent discussion. Probably, if he had at once made his remarks mr the subject with the requisite force and dexterity, he would not have found it necessary to repeat them but three blows' however ponderous, will scarcely pro- duce the effect of one. vigorously and opportunely applied."

Another set a documents consists of correspondence on the subject of Cracow,—first its temporary and military occupation, and then its annex, ation to the Austrian dominions. The two most important despatches are one from Prince Metternich to M. de Thom, (6th November,) announcing the annexation; and the reply addressed by M. Giiizot to the Count de Flahout, (3d December,) conveying the French protest. The groundi taken up by Prince Metternich are those publicly imputed to the Three Powers,—that Cmcow was created a state by the Three Powers in a separate treaty among themselves; that the separate treaty was only ins corporated in the treaty. of Vienna as receiving the sanction [merely aes quiescent, passive or permissive,] of the other European powers; that Cracow had continued to be a focus for the seditious turbulence of the Poles; and that therefore the Three Powers were obliged to exercise the • This is an English version of the original teat, rendered-literally—" The GOMM" ment of the King could not beinistaken as to this situation. In order to obviate 16 consequences, It resorted at Madrid to the most direct and most legitimate means, and appealed to the free choice and independent will of Queen Isabella and of her Governs meat. By the side of the combination which was being pursued In evident opposition to its policy, it placed and offered a different combination. It had a right to doss; having openly and positively reserved to Use' r that right. It was its duty to do so ; for the hypothesis on which that reservation had been made, and which the French Go. vernment had foreseen in its instructions sent to Madrid, as well as in its declarations In Loudon, became more and more probable. The Queen of Spain and tier Government have accepted this combination."

ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE FRENCU DE. !WATCH.

"Le gouvernement du Rol n'a pas pu se meprendre cur cette situation. l'our en prevenir les consequences, U a pris A Ma- drid is inoyen le plus direct et le plus legi- time ; ii a fait Appel an libre chola. A la volonte independante de Is Rehm Isabelle et de son gouvernement. A cbte de is combinalson qui se poursuivalt evident- ment contre as politique, il a place, ii a offert une combinatson different& II le pouvait, ear il s'eu etalt ouvertement et positivement reserve le droit. tile devait, car l'hypothese pour laqueUe U await fait cette reserve, et quill await prevue dans sea instructions a Madrid, comme dans sea declarations h Londres, devenait de plus en plus probable. La Heine d'Espagne et son gouvernemente oat aceepte- must corn- binaison."*

TILIII5LATED QUOTATION INSE-ATED IN THE ENGLISH DOCUMENT.

"Si.Ginzot's despatch" goes on to say, that 'The French Government was utuahla to deceive itseir as to the state of things, and saw that there teas, on the part of the' Spanish Cowl, so strong a desire for the Coburg alliance; that, if the British Covers- ment should make no active opposition to 0, and should remain only passive in the matter, that marriage would certainly be concluded; and that, consequently, the French Go- vernment resorted at Madrid to the most direct and most legitimate means, and ap- pealed to the free choice and independent' will of the Queen and of her Government to bring about a different arrangement. By the side of a combination which was being pursued evidently In opposition to the r policy of the French Government, that Government (says Si. Outset). offered & different combination; and this latter one was accepted by the Queen and her Go- vernment.'" right which they possessed of extinguishing the state, or, as he calls it, of "not reviving" its existence after the military suspension of its independ- ence. These arguments M. Guizot meets with a temperate but explicit assertion of principles; and we extract the most striking points of his despatch- " The fermentation of the ancient Polish provinces, so frequently springing to birth, proceeds from a cause more general and more powerful. These are the separated members of a great state, violently destroyed, which agitate and rise rebelliously again. The treaties which recognize such deeds do not cause to dis- appear. all at once the anguish and the social complaints which result from it. Time, u,stice, a kindness unequivocally active, a prolonged good government, can only succeed there; for they are the only means that the civilization of Europe renders at this day possible or practicable. The sovereigns and statesmen united in the Congress of Vienna had so judged of it. They wished at the same moment, when united Europe consecrated the division of Poland, to give to the Polish nation, and to the conscience of Europe, disturbed by the division, a certain moral satisfaction. They had at the same time opened before their Polish subjects perspectives of amelioration for the institutions and the interior government of the country. Grave troubles might interrupt the course of this policy, at once wise and generous, but could not cause it to be entirely abandoned and abolished. Nothing compromises a power more than to declare itself unable to accomplish slowly and with time its own promises and hopes given to itself. The destruction of the little state of Cracow could remove some means of action from the spirit of Polish conspiracy and insurrection; but it can also encourage and even irritate the sentiments which bring to birth so obstinately these deplorable undertakings. A/nd, at the same time, it detracts from the authority of the influences which could prevent them. It weakens throughout Europe, in this sad question, the principles of order and stability for the advantage of blind passions and violent

. designs. • •

"There is not the slightest difference between these articles [relating to Cra- cow] and those which give to Prussia a portion of the states of the King of Saxony. The foundation of the republic of Cracow is placed in the same rank as the stipulations which have formed other states, instituted kingdoms, recognized the free towns of Germany, created the Germanic Confederation. Two articles only of the special treaty of the 9th of June, viz. 10 and 118, mention the special treaty concluded between the Three Powers on the 3rd of May; and they declare that the dispositions contained in this treaty shall have the same force and weight as if they were word for word inserted in the general act.' Certainly, fur from rendering the existence of the republic of Cracow more precarious, these words, adopted and signed by all Europe, had for their object to give it stronger and more authentic guarantees. The Government of the King then makes use only of an evident right, and at the same time it accomplishes an imperious duty, in protesting solemnly against the suppression of the republic of Cracow; an act positively contrary to the letter as well as to the meaning of the treaty of Vienna of the 9th of June 1815. After long and mighty agitations which have so deeply shaken Europe, it is by the respect of treaties and of all the rights they conse- crate that the order of Europe is founded and maintained. No power can free it- self without freeing the others at the same time. France has given no example of a similar blow to the policy of conservation and peace. France has not at all forgotten the melancholy sacrifices imposed upon her by the treaties of 1815. She could rejoice in an act which would authorize her, bye just reciprocity, to consult for the future only the foreseeing calculation of her interests. And ahe it is that recalls to a faithful observation of these treaties the powers which have reaped the principal advantages of them. She it is that preoccupies herself especially in the maintenance of the rights acquired, and of the respect of the independence of states.'

In his usual elaborate fashion, Mr. David Urquhart is trying to prove step by step, in a series of letters to the Morning Post, that the Montpensier marriage and the Cracow affair are only so many incidents created by Lord Palmerston to hide his treacherous complicity with Russia. In the same paper have appeared two smaller communications on the secret correspond- ence between. Lord Castlereagh and the Emperor Alexander which has re- cently appeared in the Times. Mr. Urquhart's object in the first of these letters is to trace Lord Palmerston's hand. He notices a letter to the Times from the Marquis of Londonderry objecting to the publication, as showing the correspondence not to have been communicated by the family of the deceased statesman, and that possession of it mast, from the nature of things, lave been confined to the two Cabinets. Mr. Urquhart then continues— "The least improbable solution is, perhaps, that they have come from the Foreign Office. 'What!' it will be said, Lord Palmerston publishing documents exposing Russia!' If it be so, it is nothing new. Suppose that some suspicion be awakened in the mind of a colleague, he must do something to counteract it. The suspicion is whispered: the ready answer is now furnished—' Don't you know that it was Lord Palmerston who gave that correspondence to the Times !, At all events, that was the object of publications against Russia which issued from the press in 1835 and 1836 under official sanction. He had been by myself to his Sovereign charged with serving the interests of a foreign power. By sanc- tioning those publications, and by furnishing from the Foreign Office documents against Russia, I, in common with others, was induced to surrender my sus- picions. It was then that the Progress of Russia in the East, by the British Envoy in Persia, appeared. It was then that the Portfolio came forth week by week. It was then that the whole press of England, and partly of Europe, was moved under his direction to arouse and combine a confederacy against Russia. When he had thus recovered his Ministerial position, and strengthened himself by the belief of his profound Russian antipathies, then did he turn round and do ex- actly the reverse of all that had been urged in these publications. It was by as- suming on that occasion the guise of hostility to Russia, one of the forms of which was the publication of secret diplomatic documents against her, that he calmed suspicions in the very highest quarter, maintained his ground in Parliament, and was enabled to continue his services to her as heretofore."

In his next letter, Mr. Urquhart denies the imputation that he had com- municated the documents— "It is represented in the diplomatic circles in London, that it is I who have communicated those despatches to the Times. I formally deny this statement. is also said that these despatches were taken by the Poles at Warsaw, and that thus they had come into my possession. This statement is absolutely false as to the second point, and, to the best of my belief, false as to the first. It is further said that they could not have come from Lord Palmerston, since the documents published in the Times have been collated in the Foreign Office with the originals, and found not to be in all respects verbally ac- citrate: I-need not comment on such an argument, intended only for la petite diplomatie. These shifts, I contend, substantiate in no ordinary degree my letter addressed to you.on the 7th. "It is singular, that on the day on which that letter appeared, fortunately postponed to the 9th, the Times, objecting to Lord Londonderry's claim to con- trol the publication of those documents, asserted the property of them to be vested solely in the two Cabinets, and threatened him with a prohibitory ukase from St. Petersburg in case of his presuming to publish them; leaving it, of course, to be inferred, that if no injunction from the Queen's Bench interfered with their publi- cetion, it was not without the sanction of the Foreign Office."

Mr. Urquhart then recurs to his first statement; and, from the publica- tion of a particular document, namely the passage in Count Pozzo di Borgo's memorandum to his own Government in 1814, be drives home his charges-.

"This document was surely not communicated by the Russian to the Engliak, Government. The Times gives no explanation of how it came into their posses. sion, but quotes it as if it had a library of the like at its disposal. I am not un- acquainted with this document. It is one of a set of documents placed in Lord Palmerston's hands fourteen years ago. That one was in a certain degree sepa- rated from the set, but I cannot doubt that he had communication of it togethen with the others. He did not come into the possession of them by any desire oft search of his own; they were pressed upon him."

This passage, however, is qualified by an admission of its being "bare possible," though not probable, that the memorandum might have booty communicated by "another individual"