"Ceux qui régnent ou régneront en France, ni tout autre Prince qui est issu de cette famille, ou QUI EN NAÎTRA CI-APRÈS, NI SES DESCENDANTS, ne pourront JAMAIS posséder la couronne d'Espagne."

The above extract, although it is not taken from a stipulation in the treaty, affords a convincing proof of the intentions of the contracting parties; for at the time when the declaration was made, the plenipotentiaries were actually sitting in conference at Utrecht, and only waiting to conclude the treaty until the acts of renunciation were signed and duly passed into laws, both in Spain and France; and as soon as those formalities were fulfilled, the treaty was signed on the 11th of April, 1713.

It appears, then, that the renunciations were inserted in the Treaty of Utrecht, in lieu of the stipulation contained in the preliminaries of the Hague of 1709, in which the words "conventions matrimoniales" occur. But it is remarkable that even those preliminaries did not, any more than the Treaty of Utrecht, forbid marriages between French princes and Spanish princesses. They merely declared that no rights could thereby be acquired by any French prince to the throne of Spain. To this, be it remembered, Louis XIV. gave his consent, and we shall presently show that the effect of the renunciations is precisely the same.

It remains to be seen whether the intentions of the contracting parties were clearly expressed in the treaty and the acts annexed to it. In order that our readers may be able to judge for themselves, we annex, in an Appendix, the following documents which contain the principal passages bearing upon this subject:

No. I.-ARTICLE 6 of the TREATY of UTRECHT between ENGLAND and FRANCE of April 11, 1713.

No. II.

ROYAL CEDULA of PHILIP V., dated March 18, 1713, containing his Act of Renunciation of November 5, 1712.

(Incorporated in the Treaty of Utrecht.)

No. III.-ACT of RENUNCIATION of the DUKE of ORLEANS, dated November 19, 1712.

(Incorporated in the Treaty of Utrecht.)

No. IV.-LETTERS PATENT of LOUIS XIV., dated March, 1713, approving and confirming the Acts of Renunciation of PHILIP V. and of the Dukes of BERRY and ORLEANS.

No. V.

(Incorporated in the Treaty of Utrecht.)

ARTICLE 2nd of the TREATY of UTRECHT between ENGLAND and SPAIN, dated July 13, 1713.

NO. VI. ARTICLE 2nd of the QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE between ENGLAND, FRANCE, AUSTRIA, and the STATES GENERAL, dated August 2, 1718.

This Article is the same as the 3rd Article of the Treaty of Vienna between Spain and Austria of April 30, 1725.

NO. VII.-DÉCLARATION de PHILIPPE V. du 8 Juillet, 1712. No. VIII.-PRÉLIMINAIRES de la HAYE, 1709.

No. IX. PROJET de la FRANCE pour la Paix du 2 Janvier, 1710.

It must be almost needless to remark that, as our interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht is founded upon the words of these documents, we shall have occasion to refer to them in the course of our answers to the various objections that have been made to that interpretation; and, as we propose to reply to each objection seriatim, it will be impossible to avoid repetitions.

CHAPTER II.

It would seem to be sufficient merely to read the above-mentioned documents, in order to arrive at the conclusion that the effect of the stipulations which they contain is clearly to exclude any prince of the X house of Orleans from sitting upon the throne of Spain, and that it was the especial object of the arrangements therein made to provide against the particular case which has now occurred, and to prevent the children of a marriage between a French prince and a Spanish princess from “acquiring" claims to both thrones: to that of France in right of their father, and to that of Spain in right of their mother. But several objections to this interpretation having been urged, we will now proceed to consider them.

First, It has been said that the object of the Treaty of Utrecht was to prevent the crowns of France and Spain from being united on one head-that so long as such a union is not likely to be effected, the parties to the treaty have no cause to complain, and that, until such an event appears imminent, they have no right to interfere,

The argument that England has no right to interfere until the union of the two crowns appears imminent is scarcely worthy of a refutation. For it is self-evident that, even supposing her to have no other ground of objection, it could not be necessary, and most certainly it would not be wise, to wait until that

union was actually consummated before she took any steps to prevent it.

But it is not correct to represent the Treaty of Utrecht as having no object but that of preventing the union of the two crowns; for, in the treaty between England and Spain of July 13th, 1713, it is laid down in direct terms, that the object is to prevent too intimate an alliance between France and Spain: Propter ingens periculum quod libertati salutique totius Europæ ex nimis arctâ Regnorum Hispanic Galliæque conjunctione impenderet." And it is added, in the same article, that it was with a view to quiet all fears and jealousies respecting such an alliance that it had been determined and agreed upon to take such measures and precautions as should render the union of the two crowns for ever impossible.

The prevention of that union, therefore, is to be regarded as the means of attaining the end above stated, not as the end itself, and, consequently, it cannot be represented as the sole object of the treaty.

But, further, in the second article of the Quadruple Alliance of August 2nd, 1718, another object is expressly stated, namely, that of preventing the crowns France and Spain from being ever united on one a, in the same line :

hea

Iro regulâ statuatur, ne Regna Galliæ et Hispaniæ ullo unquam tempore in unam eandemque personam, nec in unam eandemque Lineam, coalescere unirique possent."

This latter stipulation is a clear prohibition of the succession of the children of the Duke of Montpensier to the crown of Spain.

But if the only object had been to prevent the union

of the two crowns, it may be asked of what use were the renunciations? A simple stipulation that the two crowns never should be united would have been sufficient, and it would not have been necessary to insist upon the renunciations by the Dukes of Berry and Orleans of the crown of Spain. The incorporation of those acts in the treaty is, therefore, a proof that there was a further object in view. Moreover, when the war broke out for the purpose of opposing the claims of Philip V., he was not the next in succession to the throne of France, and the danger of that union did not appear by any means imminent. But, further, why did not Louis XIV. take possession of the Spanish throne himself, in right of Anne of Austria? or why did he not place upon it the next heir to his own crown in right of Maria Theresa? It is evident that the other powers of Europe would have opposed such a proceeding, and that they did not require the authority of a treaty to justify their doing so. It is very remarkable also, that no renunciations were required, either from Louis XIV., or the Dauphin, or the Dauphin's eldest son, and that even the will of Charles II. of Spain (in virtue of which the Duke of Anjou took possession of the throne) expressly provided, that in case the Duke of Anjou should succeed to the crown of France, his rights to that of Spain should devolve on the Duke of Berry, and that if the Duke of Berry should become King of France, then the crown of Spain should pass to the house of Austria, and, in failure thereof, to that of Savoy, the house of Orleans remaining altogether excluded. It was, therefore, long before the Treaty of Utrecht, an established principle that the two crowns should not be united

ز