it. The Reply was actually in the Press when a second edition of Lord Carnarvon's work was announced, which there was good reason to believe was to be accompanied by some strictures upon the Pamphlet, and it was judged expedient to await its

appearance.

The author might possibly have thought otherwise if he had been aware that so great a length of time would have taken place between its announcement and its publication; a delay of which the cause can be surmised, as well as the reason why the work appeared at the particular moment it did; and certainly those reasons are not to be looked for in that absence of party spirit to which his Lordship lays claim. The author now publishes his reply to the article in the Quarterly Review: for, although a portion of the general observations which that reply contains may be now somewhat out of date, subsequent events have only served to prove the correctness of what is advanced in them.

SEQUEL,

ETC. ETC.

An article has appeared in the Quarterly Review, which it would be most ungrateful on our part not to acknowledge, for we consider it the greatest triumph which has signalised our attempt to prevent the British public from being misguided, and to make known the whole truth upon a subject of great importance, as regards the foreign policy of our Government, and the interests of our country. Aware as we are of the combination of parliamentary and newspaper talent which has been employed in the attempt to refute our arguments, and contradict our facts, we confess we hardly expected that our adversaries, by the poverty of their statements, and the superabundance of their malice, should have allowed judgment to go by default.

Of the first portion of the Review we shall say nothing, as it consists only of extracts from Lord Carnarvon's work, occasionally broken by fragments of original matter, which, as they serve for a foil, and bring out in high relief the graceful style of the author of the work on Portugal and Galicia, we have no doubt will be viewed by his Lordship with the same feelings of thankfulness, which we

B

ourselves entertain towards the critic for the good offices he has done our pamphlet in the latter part of his Review. That this critic should reply to arguments by abuse, in which he certainly is no mean adept, is not wonderful; but we are surprised that the editor of the Quarterly Review should not, for his own credit, have expunged some of the vulgarities in which the article abounds, and which, though they sufficiently denote the tone of mind of the author, and the class to which he must belong, will surely be reprobated, even by those readers who adopt the Carlist principles of the Quarterly.

The Reviewer says that the pamphlet is the joint production of M. Mendizabal and the Foreign Office; "is marked by the spirit of stock-jobbing, and that we should laugh at all criticism, if we could find that our literary effort had raised Spanish bonds per cent." Now, we will venture to affirm that such a notion of "the spirit" in which our pamphlet was written, occurred just about as much to the numerous persons who have done us the honour to read our "literary effort," as did to ourselves the idea that Lord Carnarvon had an interest in depressing Spanish funds; and we shall therefore leave the Reviewer to the monopoly of his notion, and shall not stoop to repel such a charge. We will, however, assure this rebuker of "gentlemanlike misrepresentation," that the pamphlet is the production neither of Change Alley nor of Downing-street; that without any impulse from

either of those quarters, we were induced to write it solely by a desire of counteracting the effects which might be produced by the errors in Lord Carnarvon's work; and that M. Mendizabal is as innocent as the Reviewer himself of having "prepared the materials" for our pamphlet.

66

The Reviewer is pleased to state that we, or our Downing-street auxiliary, endeavour at the outset. to conciliate our readers by paying a just tribute to Lord Carnarvon's character," by which, if he means any thing beyond mere flippancy, he must intend to have it believed that the British public is so unanimously Carlist, and so much in love with Lord Carnarvon's advocacy of Carlism, that some previous propitiation was necessary to bring them to listen to any arguments on the other side-a view which we take leave to doubt.

To pay a just tribute to the talents or performances of an opponent previously to entering into discussion with him is, we apprehend, sufficiently in accordance with the usages of Parliament, of the Bar, and of society in general (though not perhaps in the habits of the Quarterly Review, or of the Morning Post), to save us from the charge of disguising timidity under the mask of conciliation. We had a double motive for saying what we did of Lord Carnarvon. It was a personal satisfaction to us to place on record our opinion of his Lordship, and our sense of his distinguished character and abilities, and the deference that any production of

For

his pen must meet with, made us wish to demonstrate the errors into which he had fallen. like reasons it would never have occurred to us to reply to the ignorant and lowlived diatribes of the Morning Post upon the policy of the Government towards Spain, or indeed to the article which we are now commenting upon, were it not for the respectability of the Review in which it has been published, though there is internal evidence that the person charged with Spanish affairs in the Morning Post and the writer of the article we are replying to, are the same.

The writer declares that he, of course, cannot affect to enter into the voluminous details of a discussion upon the Basque Provinces, and we applaud his convenient reserve, but he picks out a few passages from our pamphlet upon what he calls the larger and more important questions, and upon their issue, he says, must rest the credit of the antagonist statements. Upon this ground we will meet him.

Lord Carnarvon has much more reason to complain of his indiscreet advocate than of our pamphlet. With respect to the Carlist party and the Infant's connexion with it, we shewed that his Lordship had been led into error; but the Reviewer proposes to himself to upset our statement and justify Lord Carnarvon's by "one or two private anecdotes," and proceeds to tell how a Spanish gentleman, now in London, when passing through Sara