The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-14 00:00:00

M. LE CONTE BRESSON A M. EL IZOT.

(Private Extract.)
MADRID, JUNZ 2S, 1816.—1 have hastened to assist
)1. Bulwer in his efforts in fdvour of the son of the
Infante Don Francis, assuring him that your in-
structions have given me full authority. I incresse
my attentions to the Infante. I presented to him
yesterday the Archbishop of Bordeaux, and, on rising to de-
part, I took him aside, and advised him to recommend great
prudence to his sons, whose chances had increased. lie has
expressed to me some disquietude and some displeasure at the
journey to Brussels of the Duke de Seville. " Very well,"
replied, "my lord, write to the king to detain him at Paris"
—and behold his letter. I think you will be glad is have
under your hand all the possible pretenders.

MEMORANDUM COMMUNICATED MARCH 4, 1846, TO LORD

ABBROBBN BY W. ST. AULAIRE.

PARIS, FE8.27, 1846.—T. The principle that we have sup-
ported and which the British cabinet has accepted as the
basis of our policy respecting the marriage of the queen of
Spain, has an application very difficult and uncettain. At
present this is the aiturtion of the descendants of Phillip V.,
and of those who do or may pretend to the hand of the
queen. The Prince of Lucca is married. The Count de
Trappani is much c impromised—lst, by the explosion
which has taken place against hint, and 2nd, by
the fall of General Narvaez. The sons of the
Infante don Francis de Paulo are much compro-
mised-Ist, by their false proceedings ; and 2d, by their
connexion with the radical party and their antipathy with
the moderado : 3rd. By the ill will of the Queen Mother and
of the young Queen herself. The sons of Don Carlos hitherto
are impossible : let. Because of the loudly proclaimed oppo-
sition of all parties : 2nd. By the exclusion formally declared
in the constitution : 3rd. By their own dispnaitions always
s a far removed from that course which alone could give them
any chance of success. The actual situation of the descendants
of Philip V. in the question of the marriage is then very un-
favourable. _ _

11. I have much to say upon the causes of this fact. I
shall only insist on two points. We have constantly tes-
tified for all the descendants of Philip V., without excep-
tion' favourable sentiments. We have said and re-
peated to Queen Christina herself that the Infactes,sons of
Don Francis de Paulo, would be approved of. We have
done all that was in our power to render possible the sons of
Don Carlos. If we have particularly supported the Count de
Trappani, it is because his success appeared more probable
than that of any other, in consequence of the favourable
disposition of Queen Christina and of the young Queen.
2. rhe British cabinet has given us for the Trapani ar-
rangement no advice or efficacious support. It has observed
a cold neutrality, and its inertia has given a free course to
all the hostilities and all the intrigues, whether Spanish or
of inferior English agents, whom its active and clear course
has restrained. . _ .

111. Whatever may be the causes, the fact that the diffi-
culties of the marriage of one of the descendants of Philip V.
with Queen Isabella, are very much aggravated is indisput-
able. And at the some time a very active work is prosecuted
at present to marry Prince Leopold of Coburg either
to Queen Isabella or Donna Fermanda. The court of Lis-
bon is the focus of this project. The correspondence, the
Portuguese and Spanish journals evidently support it. It
is affirmed Viet ?nut* Leopold of Coburg, who was to have
left, Feb. 24, Lisbon for Cadiz, Gibraltar, Algiers, Malta,
and Italy, will make, either secretly or publicly, a.journey
to Madrid. Many circumstances render this probable.
IV.—We have been, and will continue to he, faithful to
the politics that we have adopted, and to the engagements we
have taken as to the marriages of Queen Isabella and the
Infanta Donna Liaise Fernsuda. But if the actual state of
things should be prolonged and developed, we may arrive at
a situa ion in 4Meh we shall be-Ist., placed under the
empire of an absolute necessity to hinder the marriage either
of the Queen or the Infanta, lest our policy in Spain should
receive a check to which we would not submit. 2nd. Free from
any engagement either with respect to one or the other mar-
riage. This will happen if the marriage either of the Queen
or the Infanta with Prince Leopold of Coburg, or with any
other prince not included in the descendants of Philip V.,
should become probable or imminent. In such case we
should be liberated from all engagement, and free to act
immediately, to parry the blow by demanding the band
either of the Queen or the Infanta for the Duke of Mont.
pensier.
V. We desire sincerely and earnestly that things may
not corns to this extremity. We only see one means of pre-
venting it. It is that the British cabinet should cordially
unite with us, first, in setting afloat one of the deseendints
of Philip V., no matter which, either the Duke of Seville,
or the Duke of Cadiz, or the Count de Trapani, and to
propose his marriage with the Queen. Second, To
hinder meanwhile the marriage of the Infanta,
either with Prince Leopold of Coburg or with any other
foreign prince not included in the descendants of Philip V.
We believe that by a common and decided action of the
two cabinets, this double end may be attained, and we con-
sider it a duty to forewarn the English cabinet that without
that we shall feel free to act as I have just indicated.

Y. OCIZOT TO COCNT JARNAC.
(Official.)

Pasts, Ocr. 11, 1846.—Monsienr le Comte,—Before I
forwarded the despatch I had the honour to address to you
on the sth instant, I read it to the English ambassador.
Lord Normanby, after having heard this document,
I merely presented a few short observations, and re-
ferred me to the reply which Lord Palmerstor.
would probably make and to the discussion which
might ensue on the subject between the two govern-
ments. He then informed rite that he had orders to commu-
nicate to me, and he did then read to me a note without any
date, which Mr. Bulwer is instructed to lay before the
Spanish government. The British cabinet protests
therein, beforehand, against the possible accession of
the descendants of the Duke of Montpensier and
the Infanta to the throne of Spain, declaring that
it does not recognise the rights in virtue of which this acces-
sion would be claimed in default of issue of Queen Isabella
that in this case England reserves her full liberty to take in
the conteztationsthat might ensue the part thatshe might deem
most expedient, and that she at once expresses that reserve
in order that she may not at any future period be re-
proached with having allowed her opinion to remain
unknown. Such is the object and the general tenor
of the English note, of which I cannot, however, convey to
vou with precision the terms and details. It is to the
Spanish government this note is to be delivered, and it is for
them to reply to it. But since it has been communicated to
us we have a right, and it is our duty, to express our opinion
on it. Such • protestation, presented in virtue of the
treaty of Utrecht, and of the renunciations annexed to
it, or more especially in virtue of the renunciation of
the Duke of Orleans (1712) of his eventual claims to the
throne of Spain is, in our opinion, entirely unfounded. I
stated, in my despatch of the sth of this mouth, what was
the real character of the Treaty of Utrecht, and what double
object its authors proposed to themselves to attain by the
clauses relative to the Spanish succession. It was intended on
the one hand to secure the throne to the descendants of Philip
the Fifth on the other, to prevent the union oa the
same head of the crowns of France and Spain. This was
the object of the renunciations demanded on the one hand
of Philip the Fifth, on the other of the Dukes of Berri and
of Orleans. It is consequently that which determines the
real signification and legitimate extent of these renuncia-
tions. Thee onntain what is necessary to attain, the object of '
the treaty of Utrecht; but they cannot, and do not, in reality,
extend any farther. According tothis princptle, incontestable
in itself, and which besides is perfectly consonant with the
text of the document in question, the renunciation of the
Duke of Orleans signifies that in case the throne of Spain
should become vacant by the extinction of the heirs of
Philip the Fifth to which it is secured by the treaty of
Utrecht, the descendants of the Duke of Orleans could in no
wise claim this throne, for in exchange for the abandonment
I made by Philip the Fifth tor himself and his descendants of
his eventual claims to the throne of France, the Duke of
Orleans abandoned his eventual claims to the crown of
Spain, wishing to preserve therighta equally eventual, which
his birth likewise gave him to the crown of France, and that
in the interest of Europe had been judged incompatible with
I the former. This the real and rational sense of the renun-
ciation. Does it follow that the descendants of Philip the
Fifth, on whom the crown of Spain would devolve naturally,
I legitimately in virtue of their own rights founded on the veil
clauses of the treaty of Utrecht, should be excluded I
from it, they or their posterity, because they might be, I
or their ancestors might have been, married to descendants
of the Duke of Orleans ? In other terms, must the certain '
incontestable right of the descendents of Philip V. perish,
because they might be allied to a family that had renounced
theirs ? Evidently this thesis cannot be supported, and to
show the error of it, in its full light, it is sufficient to
state it with precision. Such is, however, the substance
of the English note reduced to its real and essential terms.
On this argument and on this alone does the protestation
rest. In principle then it is without any, the least, founda-
tion. Facts prove that Europe has hitherto been of this
opinion. In my despatch of the filth of the present month,
I quoted three examples of marriages concluded
between descendants of Philip V. and princes of
other branches of the house of Bourbon that had renounced
the throne of Spain. I could multiply these examples,
Never had it been, I will not say, maintained, but thought
that in consequence of these, and as if the disqualification