It must be needless to observe that the term "réciproquement," added to the sentence "en conséquence de la renonciation de notre dit Petit-fils le Roi d'Espagne," which occurs in the extract just cited, proves that Louis XIV. understood the effect of the act of renunciation of the Duke of Orleans to be the same as that of Philip V. And it is clearly impossible to deny that the sentence, "les droits qu'aucun de ses descendants puisse avoir en quelque temps que ce soit à l'avenir,” refers to future rights.

Fifthly, It may also be as well to remark, that these acts are stated, both in the acts themselves and in the treaty, to be "reciprocal" with respect to one another. Now if those acts had only annulled existing rights they would not have been reciprocal, because as the Salic law exists in France, the descendants of Philip V. could never, by marrying a French princess, acquire for their children a new right to the crown of France, whereas the descendants of the French princes would have been placed in a more advantageous position, as they would have had the power, by marrying a Spanish princess, of acquiring new rights to the crown of Spain for their children. If then existing rights only had been annulled, the acts of renunciation would not have been reciprocal as regards the Spanish princes on the one hand, and the French princes on the other: but each of these acts states that they are so. They are stated to be so also in the 6th article of the treaty, and the letters patent of Louis XIV. say the same thing, and add that the renunciations of the French princes were made in consequence of that of Philip V.

This circumstance, therefore, furnishes an ad

E

ナ

ditional evidence of the fact that future rights were renounced as well as existing ones.

Sixthly, It is stated in the 6th article of the Treaty, that the danger of the union of the two crowns had been averted, for all time to come, by these renunciations. Now, it is surely unnecessary to say that this would have been not only untrue, but absolutely nonsense, if future rights had not been annulled. The same article states also, a little further on, that so long as these renunciations were observed with good faith, the union of the two crowns never could take place. Now, how could the treaty have declared the union of the two crowns to be impossible, if that event might at any moment have been brought about by means of a marriage between a French prince and a Spanish princess? It is perfectly true, as has been stated, that the treaty does not contain any stipulation prohibiting all such marriages; but it is equally clear, that if the treaty had not annulled beforehand the rights which might otherwise be "acquired" by the children of such marriages, there would have been no security whatever against the union of the two crowns. In point of fact, it was only eight years afterwards, viz., in 1721, that a marriage was negociated between Louis XV. and the daughter of Philip V., and we do not hear that any objection or even observation was made upon it by the parties to the treaty. Now, supposing that future rights had not been annulled, what would have been the result? Why, if the issue of that marriage had been one son only, and if the children of Philip V. had failed (he had at that time only two), the union of the two

crowns would have been brought to pass at once. But the treaty had just declared that event to be impossible for all time to come. This is evidently

absurd.

But, on the other hand, future rights being annulled by anticipation, the statement in the treaty is perfectly correct and true, and the fact that no objection was made to the marriage above-mentioned is explained. The conclusion is irresistible.

Seventhly, The treaty says that the contracting parties engage never to do any thing "capable d'empêcher les renonciations et autres transactions qui les regardent d'avoir leur plein et entier effet."

66

This form of words evidently has reference to future rights. If existing rights only had been annulled, it would only have been necessary to promise not to set them up again. But the promise to do nothing capable d'empêcher les renonciations d'avoir leur plein et entier effet" could only be made with reference to future rights. There was, as we have just observed, no stipulation prohibiting all marriages; but the sense of that just quoted was manifestly to engage not to make any marriage which could have the effect of defeating the object of the renunciations.

But this stipulation has a further and not less important effect; for it promises not only not to do anything to impair the force of the renunciations, but it makes the same promise with respect to the other transactions connected with them (les autres transactions qui les regardent), i. e., the act of exclusion and the royal Cedula of Philip V. Now the words of this latter document are too clear to admit of a quibble.

Eighthly, The acts of renunciation were, as has been

stated above, passed into fundamental laws both in France and Spain. And the royal Cedula of Philip V., which was promulgated in order to give effect to this law at the special request of the Cortes, is so explicit that we will here transcribe the principal passage of it:

"In consequence, I and all my descendants remain for ever and ever (para siempre jamas) excluded from the succession to the crown of France, so as not to be able to succeed to it, upon any pretext, nor at any time, or in any accident, or case that can happen." And in the same manner there remain reciprocally

excluded from the succession to the monarchy of Spain all the princes of the blood of France, and all their lines

existing and future. cluded all the princes, male and female, of the house of Austria, existing and future; so that neither the one nor the other can ever succeed in any case, FORESEEN OR UNFORESEEN, to the monarchy of Spain, or any of the states which appertain or may appertain to it in future.

And in the same manner are ex

The royal Cedula is incorporated with the renunciation of Philip V. in the Treaty of Utrecht between England and Spain; and, as we have just shown, the treaty between England and France contains a stipulation promising never to do anything capable of preventing this act from having its full and entire effect. It cannot be said that its language is not sufficiently explicit. But it is worthy of observation that those who contend that the children of the Duke of Montpensier will be entitled to succeed to the crown of Spain have been unable to devise any scheme of evasion, and have been driven to deny the validity of

the law. Their argument is, that the exclusion of the family of Don Carlos from the succession, and the fact that the eventual rights of the house of Savoy have not been recognized by the Cortes, is a virtual abrogation of this law. But such an argument is scarcely worthy of an answer. treaty, could not be repealed by the Cortes of Spain without the consent of the parties to that treaty. And it is besides absurd to suppose that even if the family of Don Carlos and the house of Savoy had been unjustly deprived of their rights, that circumstance alone could have the effect of admitting to the succession a family expressly excluded.

The law, forming part of a

The reason why the family of Don Carlos and the house of Savoy have not had their rights acknowledged is, that neither of them have recognized the rights of Queen Isabella, and the former have carried on war against her; and it is remarkable that, in the act of Philip V., in which the succession is settled upon the house of Savoy, it is expressly stated, as the condition of that settlement, that the Duke of Savoy and his descendants shall always maintain a perpetual alliance and friendship with Spain.

The sentence in which this condition is expressed will be found in Italics in the documents in the Appendix.

Lastly; the quadruple alliance of 1718 between England, France, Austria, and the States General contains a clause stipulating that the crowns of France and Spain should never be united on one head nor in the same line. And this stipulation having been framed as the basis of the peace which England and France desired to bring about between Austria and Spain,