Cushing to P. S.—January 13, 1875. While this dispatch is being copied there comes to hand a note from the, January 12, 1875

No. 521. Mr. Cushing to Mr. Fish.

Sir: I inclose herewith the following documents, which exhibit the present general diplomatic situation of Spain relatively to other governments, including the United States, namely:

• Copy of a circular communication from the Marquis de Molins, as minister of state ad interim under the regency ministry, received by me on the 5th instant.
• A communication from the proprietary minister of state, D. Alejandro Castro, received on the 7th instant.
• A decree of the new King, issued after his arrival in Spain, which officially constitutes the new government, as published in the Gaceta de Madrid of the 10th.
• My response to the note of the Marquis de Molins, and to that of Mr. Castro.

* * * * * * *

I speak of the change as a revolution, for such in fact it is in a constitutional sense. Although the ministers assume a regular transmission of sovreignty by descent from Queen Isabel to her eldest son and legitimate heir, Don Alfonso, and while, in doing so, they pass over the constitution of 1869, as a nullity, to go back to the last previous constitution in force, that of 1845, yet, according to this last constitution, the theory of succession would be defective by reason of the irregularity of the abdication of Queen Isabel, since that constitution provides as follows:

“Art. 46. The King requires (necesita) to be authorized by a special law—

• “1. To alienate, cede, or exchange any part of the territory of Spain.
• “2. To admit foreign troops into the kingdom.
• “3. To ratify treaties of offensive alliance, special ones of commerce, and those which stipulate the payment of subsidies to any foreign power.
• “4. To abdicate the crown in favor of his immediate successor.”

Now, Isabel has abdicated, it is true, but by a mere private act, without authority of any previous law, in consequence of which the point has been made, again and again, that her abdication might at any time be revoked by her, and she might at will re-assume the crown. To be sure, there is now no cause to apprehend any such act on her part, she having, in various forms, accorded her assent and approval to the accession of Don Alfonso. Notwithstanding which, however, as a question of constitutional right, the flaw in the succession still remains to the effect of imparting a shade at least of revolutionary quality to the dynastic restoration.

In various other respects the accession of Don Alfonso involves departure from constitutionalism.

Thus, in the circular note of the Marquis de Molins, he speaks of the regency ministry as an organization “provided for by all the constitutions in the event of the absence of the King.”

I cannot find any such provision in the constitution of 1845, or in any other constitution.

The constitution provides that, in case of a minority of the King, his father or mother, or, in defect of them, the next heir to the crown, shall enter at once on the exercise of the regency. But that provision does not legally apply here, because by the same constitution the King arrives at majority at the age of fourteen. Besides which, this provision of the constitution has not been observed in fact by calling the King’s father or mother to the regency. (Arts. 55 and 56.)

Another article (60) provides that, if there be no other person to whom of right belongs the regency, the Cortes shall nominate one, to be composed of one, three, or five persons. But here has been no nomination by the Cortes, and the present regency consists of nine persons.

Article 61 again provides that, “when the King shall be in a state of impossibility to exercise his authority, and that impossibility shall have been recognized by the Cortes,” then also the royal authority shall be exercised by a regent or a regency. But that is in no respect the present case.

Meanwhile the constitution does not provide for any such regency as the Marquis de Molins suggests, “in the absence of the King;” and absence from where? From Madrid? Clearly not; for it has been the practice of the King to act wherever he might be in any part of Spain. Absence from Spain? But there is no such provision in the constitution; and, in point of fact, the decree appointing the regency ministry expressly purports to be founded on an act of Don Alfonso performed outside of Spain.

Finally, add to all this the consideration that it was not a regency appointed, as a regency only could be, by the Cortes, but a regency ministry combining with the quality of a ministry the incompatible one of a regency, and its members designated in fact by a volunteer reunion of important persons under the auspices of the captain-general of New Castille; and we shall thus be constrained to conclude that the change has really been a revolutionary one.

It must be conceded at the same time that this revolution approaches nearer to legality than any previous one; that it has been accomplished without the effusion of a drop of blood, or the occurrence of the slightest breach of the peace or other disorder 5 and that it appears to be generally acceptable in all parts of Spain, outside of the immediate theater of civil war, and recognized as a consummated political fact by the rest of Europe.

The young King was received with royal honors in his passage through France to Marseilles, on his way to Barcelona. It seems undeniable that his reception at Barcelona was thoroughly cordial, as it will undoubtedly be at Valencia, where he arrived yesterday by water from Barcelona, and, meanwhile, unequivocal manifestations of support of him continue to arrive from all parts of Spain.

According to announcements made, he is to reach Madrid on Thursday, the 14th, where the most extensive arrangements and preparations have been made for his reception with all imaginable manifestations of loyalty and welcome. And, after remaining here a few days, he will proceed, by way of Zaragoza, to present himself to the army of the north.

* * * * * * *

The chiefs of all the legations held a meeting yesterday at the residence of Mr. le Comte de Chandordy, the French ambassador, to decide what course we shall take in the matter of the reception of King Alfonso.

We have all received individual cards of invitation to occupy a balcony of the ministry of Gobernacion, for the purpose of witnessing the processional entrance of the King into Madrid, and have accepted the invitation.

Question then arose whether we should call on the King, as proposed by the Austrian minister; but the French, Russian, British, and some other ministers, myself included, opined that it did not become us to take any such step until officially instructed or authorized so to do by our respective governments, and that proposition was rejected.

Next came the question whether we should partake in any of the forms of demonstration customary in Madrid on occasions of this nature, such as placing hangings at the windows, hoisting flags in the day-time, and illuminating our houses or offices in the night.

The conclusion was unanimous to hoist no flag, to put out hangings at discretion, it we found it convenient, but not otherwise; but to illuminate as a matter of unexceptional conformity with social usages in Europe.

I annex, in justification of my own act in this respect, an extract from the last edition of Marten’s Guide Diplomatique, with the very significant explanatory note of the annotator Pinheiro.

I reserve for another dispatch some more confidential observations in reference to the special position of the United States in Spain at this time.

I have, &c.,