by the words of that article; and at the time when it was framed it was stated by the Minister of the day that the article was intended to apply equally to all those who were excluded from the succession. think it unnecessary to say more on this head.

We

II. Before entering upon the consideration of the various arguments brought forward under the second head, it will be advisable to make a few remarks for the purpose of stating clearly what is the precise question under discussion. A great deal has been said and written, more especially in an evening London Journal which receives its inspirations from the other side of the Channel, upon the assumption that those who have invoked the faith of the Treaty of Utrecht, have contended that it contains a stipulation expressly prohibiting the marriage of any prince of the blood of France with a Spanish Infanta. And the Journal above alluded to has been continually harping upon this one idea, which it has imported from foreign parts, and stating with an air of triumph that the word "marriage" is not so much as mentioned in the treaty. Now no one who has made himself acquainted with that treaty ever pretended that it contained any stipulation such as that above described. There could be no reason for forbidding all marriages between members of the different branches of the House of Bourbon, many, and indeed most of which might be perfectly innocent. Thus the marriage of a French princess with a Spanish prince might be quite harmless, because, as the Salic law exists in France, no claim to the crown of that country could thereby be conveyed to the issue of that marriage. But, because the treaty does not expressly prohibit all

marriages, it does not follow that each particular one must be consistent with the spirit of the treaty. It appears to us that, if the consequences of any act be inconsistent with the spirit of a treaty, the act itself is so likewise, even though it may not be prohibited in express terms. For instance, if a King of France had married a Queen of Spain, it might equally be alleged that no express stipulation was thereby violated. But would such a marriage be consistent with the spirit of the treaty ?

The assertion which we make, however, with respect to the treaty of Utrecht is not that it expressly prohibits the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier with the Infanta Luisa Fernanda, but that it absolutely excludes the children of the Duke of Montt pensier from the succession to the crown of Spain; and if there is any meaning in words, the truth of that assertion will be fully established.

With respect to the fact that the word "marriage is not to be found in the treaty, we can only look upon the manner in which that fact has been stated, and the frequency with which it has been repeated, as extremely puerile, and as a proof that those who prompted the journal which has laid so much stress upon it, are conscious of the weakness of the cause which they advocate. For, although that word may not be used in the treaty, there can be no doubt that the case of "marriage" is included in the comprehensive phrase, "de quelque manière que la succession puisse arriver à notre ligne," which is contained in the act of renunciation of the Duke of Orleans of 1712. And, even supposing it were not so, the omission would be of little importance in the present case.

t

メ

Even if the treaty did contain a clause stating, in express terms, that no French Prince should ever be allowed to obtain the crown of Spain by "marriage," such a clause would be of no value whatever, and would throw no light upon the question under discussion. William III. may be said to have become King of England by marriage, but no one supposes that the Duke of Montpensier will become King of Spain and his son, if he should ever ascend the throne of that country, would do so in right of his mother, not in that of his wife; that is to say, by inheritance, and not by "marriage."

We repeat therefore, that the argument is, in itself, worthless, and the daily repetition of it perfectly childish.

It may perhaps be worth while to mention here the circumstances which led to the omission of this word. "marriage:" not with the view of making any further answer to the argument of which we have just disposed, but for the purpose of showing what were the real views and intentions of the contracting parties. Four years before the treaty of Utrecht was signed, negotiations for peace were carried on; and, on the 28th of May, 1709, preliminaries were signed by the allies at the Hague, stipulating that France should recognise Charles of Austria as King of Spain; that the King of France should withdraw his forces from every part of the Spanish dominions, and should afford no assistance whatever, directly or indirectly, to the Duke of Anjou, but should compel him to leave Spain in two months; that the entire Spanish monarchy should continue to belong to the house of Austria; that the crowns of France and Spain should

never be united; and that no French prince could ever become King of Spain, by any means whatever, whether "par testament, appels, successions, conventions matrimoniales, dons, ventes, contrats ou autres voyes telles qu'elles puissent être." (Article 6.) There were many other articles, and Louis XIV. agreed to them all, excepting the 4th, 35th, and 37th; his principal objection being to the 4th, which would have bound him to concert measures with the allies for expelling Philip V. from Spain. The 35th and 37th articles related to the evacuation of fortresses, the demolition of Dunkirk, and the conditions of the armistice. Upon these points the negotiations were broken off. They were, however, renewed on the 2nd of January, 1710, by the King of France, who proposed, as the basis of the negotiation, nearly the same terms as those contained in the preliminaries of the Hague, with the exception of the 4th, 35th, and 37th articles. The "projet de la France pour la paix" offers "à l'égard de l'Espagne une promesse authentique de la part du Roi de reconnoitre immédiatement après la paix l'Archiduc Charles d'Autriche en qualité de Roi d'Espagne, &c.

S. M. veut bien aussi consentir qu'aucun prince de la maison de France ne puisse ni régner ni rien acquérir dans l'étendue de la Monarchie d'Espagne par aucune des voies qui seront toutes spécifiées." This negotiation was again broken off upon the same point as the former one, the allies requiring that Louis XIV. should join his forces to theirs, in order to drive his grandson out of Spain.

A change of government occurred shortly afterwards in England. Negotiations were again opened,

T

but made little progress till the death of the Emperor Joseph, occurring in April, 1711, gave a new turn to them. The Archduke Charles immediately succeeded to the Austrian dominions, and in the month of October was elected Emperor of Germany. It was then felt that the union of Spain with Austria and the empire of Germany would be as dangerous to the liberties of Europe as that of France and Spain: and the recognition of Charles of Austria as King of Spain was, therefore, no longer insisted upon by the allies as the basis of negotiation. It is not necessary to go through all the details of the discussions which lasted two years more; but it was ultimately agreed that Philip V. should, upon certain conditions, be recognised as King of Spain.

It must be needless to observe that this determination rendered it impossible to adopt in the treaty of Utrecht the words of the preliminaries of the Hague. It would have been evidently impossible to insert a stipulation saying that no French prince should ever reign in Spain, whether by "inheritance, will, &c.,” in the very same treaty which recognised Philip V. as King of Spain, in virtue of rights derived from his grandmother, and of the will of Charles II. But it was resolved to substitute, in lieu of this stipulation, the reciprocal acts of renunciation, whereby Philip V. and his descendants were made a distinct family, entirely separated for ever from the French branch of the House of Bourbon, and excluded from the succession in France, and by which the French princes were for ever excluded from the succession to the crown of Spain. The declaration of Philip V. of July 8th, 1712, places this point in a very clear light :—