with the proverbial bad faith of that family, seated itself on the throne of Spain?

In the year 1612, the Infanta Anne, daughter of Philip III., married Louis XIII.; and in the year 1659, the Infanta Maria Theresa, daughter of Philip IV., married Louis XIV.; and, in both cases, very stringent acts of renunciation were executed in the names of those princesses for themselves and their posterity. But, notwithstanding these renunciations, x upon the death of Charles II., the last King of Spain of the Austrian family, Louis XIV. seized the opportunity of placing his grandson, Philip Duke of Anjou, upon the throne of Spain The claims of the Duke of Anjou were disputed by the Archduke Charles of Austria, and a war of twelve years ensued. By the Treaty of Utrecht, however, Philip V. was ultimately recognised as King of Spain, and the House of Bourbon, having thus attained through a female this great X object of their ambition, resolved to take measures to prevent the possibility of any other family obtaining it by the same means. With this view Philip V. proceeded immediately, in obedience to the injunctions of Louis XIV., to subvert the ancient and fundamental law of the monarchy which he had sworn to observe, and to abolish the long-established practice of female succession. It is unnecessary to enter at length into the details of the circumstances which attended this change of the law, which was so displeasing to the Spanish nation that Philip attempted in the first instance to effect it without the authority of the Cortes. But the Council of Castile refused, through their President Ronquillo, to sanction this proceeding, and the measure was ultimately carried by arbitrary means.

and through the instrumentality of a mock Cortes, possessing even less claim to be considered a legal assembly than that which has lately given its sanction to the marriage of the Duchess of Montpensier. The "auto acordado of Philip V., dated the 10th of May, 1713, established, within one month after the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht, a species of Salic law, hitherto unknown in Spain, by which females were excluded from the succession until the total extinction of all males. This law continued in force for nearly one hundred and twenty years. The ancient order of succession was indeed restored in the year 1789 by the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles IV.; but that law, though it passed with all due forms through the Cortes, and received the royal assent, was not then promulgated through the fear of offending France.

During the captivity of Ferdinand VII., the Cortes publicly proclaimed at Cadiz the old law of succession; but upon the return of Ferdinand to Spain in 1814, all the acts of the Cortes were annulled. It was not till 1830, that upon the breaking out of the French revolution, Ferdinand VII. promulgated the Pragmatic Sanction of Charles IV., upon which occasion the French Government protested against the alteration. In 1832, during the illness of the King at St. Ildefonso, the law of Charles IV. was revoked, and the

auto acordado" of Philip V. was re-enacted. But, upon the King's recovery, the old law was again restored and, finally, on the 22nd of June, 1833, the Cortes were assembled, and took the oath of allegiance to the Infanta Isabella, now Queen of Spain, as Princess of Asturias and heiress to the crown.

Although France had, in the first instance, protested against the re-establishment of the old law of succession, which was considered as less favourable to the interests of the House of Orleans than the "auto acordado" of Philip V., the state of public opinion in France, at that time, rendered it impossible for the King of the French to espouse openly the cause of Don Carlos and despotism, out of a mere regard to the interests of his family or his dynasty. The recognition of the Queen of Spain was therefore conceded; but it is well known with how little fidelity the stipulations of the Quadruple Alliance were executed; how Don Carlos was permitted to pass through メ France to join the insurgents in the Basque Provinces; how supplies were allowed to be conveyed to them across the French frontier, and how the auxiliary legion in depôt at Pau was broken up. But when, after so severe a struggle, and in spite of all obstacles, the cause of the Queen and of liberty at length triumphed, it was soon found that the King of the French had given up none of his pretensions as to the perpetual maintenance of the House of Bourbon on the throne of Spain. The language above alluded to, which M. Pageot was instructed to hold in 1842, and his declaration that King Louis Philippe would not permit the Queen of an independent country to select as her consort any one but a member of his own family, is perhaps one of the most arrogant pretensions ever put forth by an ambitious and powerful monarch towards a weak and defenceless neighbour. That the foundation of it should have been laid 150 years ago by an unscrupulous despot like Louis XIV. is not a matter of much surprise; but that it

メ

should be adopted and acted upon at the present day, when the voice of public opinion is able to make itself heard, and after the experience of the last great European contest and the fall of Napoleon had, we thought, taught a lesson, not to be forgotten by powerful countries, as to the necessity of respecting the independence of smaller states; and that this should be done by the sovereign to whom we have been accustomed to look up as a pattern of wisdom and moderation, and who has earned the appellation of the Napoleon of Peace, has, we confess, filled us with astonishment.

We are also at a loss to account for such a pretension as this not having been the cause of remonstrance on the part of the British Government in 1842; and sure we are that it is one which, if not now resisted by the Powers of Europe, must be utterly destructive of Spanish independence. Upon what pretence of right can it be founded? Has Spain lost her claim to be considered as an independent country, and is she become an appanage of the French crown? And are we to be told that this is a question in which England has no interest? What would be said if the Duke of Saxe Coburg were to demand that henceforth either the Salic law should be enacted in England, or that no Queen of England, nor any English princess who might be next in succession to the crown, should ever marry any prince but one of the House of Coburg? And what would France say if the same pretension were put forward with respect to Portugal, for the purpose of perpetuating the race of Coburg on the throne of that country? Yet what is the difference in principle? Absolutely none; excepting that, France

being a much more powerful country than Spain, the independence of Spain is annihilated; whereas England and Portugal would not be likely to sustain any serious injury from the attempt to advance such a pretension.

pre

We have thought it worth while to enter into these explanations, because it is, in truth, from this tension on the part of France, that the present misunderstanding has arisen. The defence put forward respecting her conduct in the affair of the Spanish marriages, rests entirely upon the assumed ground that England was exerting her influence to effect an alliance between the Queen of Spain and Prince Leopold of Saxe Coburg. Whether this allegation be true or not, we have not the means of knowing; our persuasion is, that it is entirely unfounded, and we think so for two reasons. First, because we are of

opinion that England could have no particular interest in promoting that alliance; and secondly, because we have heard it stated, on what appeared to us good authority, that the French Government did not believe that the overture which Queen Christina is said to have made to the Prince of Coburg, had any other object than that of alarming the King of the French, and extorting his consent to the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with the Queen of Spain. But we will, for the sake of argument, suppose the allegation to be true. Would it then be such a heinous crime to endeavour to make an alliance between the Queen of Spain and the Prince of Coburg? and had France so clear a right to forbid it that it justified her in violating the faith of treaties, and of other more recent engagements which, if report speaks true, were