laws. But is it to love the house of Austria, and to strengthen its security, the depriving it of the kingdoms already so renowned for the name of Austria, in the grandfather's time, and the nominating French successors? Reason therefore thoroughly concurs with the letter, for a total exclusion of the French posterity; and it is not true, that in the treaties of contracts between Spain and France, no more than in the testament of Philip, the union of crowns was the sole and only reason.

For why should it else have been necessary to give it away to the females or younger family? When in France it goes to the eldest, and the females are for ever excluded the crown of France; this would be in vain to fear the union of the two crowns, in a person which is absolutely uncapable of either.

The Duke of Orleans, one of the sons of Anne of Austria, was heretofore passed by in silence, and, by virtue of his mother's contract of marriage, has always been neglected; which, in the mean time, would be contrary to all this, if regard was had only to the fear of uniting the two crowns.

And, in the last place, the crafty inventor of the late will has been so bold, as to do a manifest injury to the most serene daughters of the Emperor Leopold; inasmuch as he endeavours to exclude all' and every of them from the pretended will, although he has not the least ground to fear in them the throne of France and Spain uniting by inheritance.

It is, therefore, evident, that the predecessors of the late King of Spain have had some other motive, than that of the sole fear of the union; they having bent their whole care to prevent any Prince of France from coming to the throne of Spain, upon the account of the publick tranquillity, and for the particular benefit of the house of Austria.'

And, if we examine the danger of the said union, what is there to assure the present Spaniards against the union, which they never cease exclaiming against? Is it the faith of France so often given, and so often broken? Is it the gravity of the Spaniards, which by the arts of its enemies is grown as fickle and as variable as a weather-cock, tossed by frequent and sudden whirlwinds? Is it the trouble or the contempt of a crown, in the vacancy of a neighbouring one, which lies perpetually at catch against the neighbouring states, till they are reduced into provinces?

But these last things are of a private concern, whereas the other things mentioned before are of a publick, and may be of pernicious consequence for the future, whatever way we consider them here. The force of peace, treaties, religion, and the very laws of Spain lie at the stake, and are called in question.

The French writers themselves cannot deny this, not even the Archbishop of Ambrun, who has made himself famous among them, by a libel heretofore published, under the title of 'A Defence of the Right* of the most Christian Queen.'

• Of Maria Teresa, which she, with the consent and approbation of her intended consort, had renounced before marriage.

That author writing in the said work with great care against the Spaniards, in favour of the French army, which then invaded Flanders, and not thinking it fit that he should be thought to reflect upon the Pragmatick* Sanction of Spain, he endeavours to elude it by all possible means, and magisterially to instruct the Spaniards in what was hurtful or profitable to them. The said sanction, with the other laws of Spain, are in a book, intituled, Nueva Recepilation, or A new Collection printed at Madrid, 1640. This sanction, in most express terms, excludes the French from the succession of Spain, so that it leaves no power to Lewis the Fourteenth, and his brother, nor to any of their children, to succeed to the kingdom of Spain, or any of the states depending thereon.

The said Archbishop acknowledges very well the express terms of that law, and puts himself to a deal of pains to overthrow so strong a bulwark. He repeats the quirks and shifts of some lawyers, which the Flemish and Spaniards had already answered so fully, that the French might be ashamed to mention them again; and, that he might seem to say something of his own, he endeavours, in whole chapters, and at the end of his libel, to disprove the reasons of the usefulness of that law drawn from the publick interest of Europe; saying, that it wanted the authority of a legislator, and the solemnity of a publication; as if the publick was only concerned in increasing the power of France, without any regard to the house of Austria, and the quiet of Europe; whence it would follow, that no monarch could establish any constitutions without the approbation of France,' though they were never so conform to the most ancient customs of former ages. It is enough that, in that sanction of Spain, the friendship and honour of the house of Austria did prevail, after they had before been confirmed by agreements, which the French had made and swore to. It is enough that the said pragmatick sanction has been made and published by a wise and prudent King, on the request and by the advice of the states of the kingdom, according to the custom of their ancestors, as also according to other laws of a later date.

This author forgets himself, and condemns the Salique Law, and the authority of his own Kings, if he denies the force of this sauction, in the form and matter of which, all the former customs have wholly ceased.

The aversion of the French to the female sex has not always been so strong, as to exclude them with their children and relations from the succession; and nevertheless what the Salique Law, brought in by process of time, has forbid, is as clear as the sun.

The French authors are not ignorant of the solemn act which has been made not many ages since, which forbids to admit the daughters of France, who are in the appenage of a royal brother, to the succession after his death, though till then they had some part in it.

• You see that the house of Austria has been deluded before now by a Pragmatick Sanction, thro' the policy and power of France. + Under the Spanish yoke.

In the first family of the Kings of France, the younger brothers had also their part in the crown so far, that even bastards were not excluded. Thus Clovis, who was the first Christian King, being dead, his four sons divided the kingdom in as many parts. Childebert had that of Paris; Clodomer that of Orleans; Clotarius that of Soison; and Theodorick their natural brother had that of Metz. At length, these four kingdoms being united in Clotarius, by the death of the rest, his four sons made a like division of it, each of them retaining the title of King of France.

This way of division continued likewise in the second family of the Kings of France almost to its end, and all the children of the Kings of France were called Kings. Yet none can say, that those things have been unjustly changed afterwards, and that they ought not to have been altered.

Hugh Capet, who brought the sceptre to the third family, was the first that made the law, and gave place to Appenages, as may be seen by an act of 1282, pronounced only in the presence of thirty nobles; yet the female heirs did not think themselves excluded by the act, until the reign of Philip le Bel, who expresly declared against their succession.

It were easy to remark several like changes touching the form of laws in ancient times, in the history of France. Now, what French

man dare accuse these changes of injustice, or declare them null? Or, who will accuse their kings of want of natural affection in excluding their daughters, even against their will, and without having renounced their right to it? Who dare declare the present laws of no force, because they differ from the ancient ones? Not to speak of those shadows of power in modern Parliaments, which make it clearly appear, that it were ridiculous in France to make the ancient laws the standard of the present ones.

Wherefore the Archbishop of Ambrun does but beat the air, when he speaks in a florid, but empty stile, against the aforesaid sanction; prostituting, by that means, the royal sincerity, and the sacredness of oaths, in the opinion of all those who are not blinded with partiality. But the evidence and the reasonableness of that law appears to all the world.

Kings should have but one tongue, and one pen, and there is nothing that shines more brightly in a prince than honesty and sincerity. Things that are promised, agreed upon, and sworn to, if ever they ought to be observed, they should be so, without doubt, by those whom we reverence, and esteem, as gods on earth. It is not lawful that what proceeds out of their lips should not take effect. The contracts of kings are not liable to school disputes, they despise the sophisms of the rabble; and they require an observation so much the more sincere, by how much they are agreeable to the matter of renunciations, to the laws of nations, to the decrees of the common law, and to the statutes of ecclesiastical

canons.

The French, Flemish, and Spanish lawyers, and some of other nations, do teach, That stipulations made of the inheritance of a

person in life, particularly with respect to a marriage that is concluded, are approved by universal custom. That the example of almost all the world is for the validity of renunciations; and that too, though no oath should intervene, even notwithstanding the minority of the person, when they are made by a general consent, and for the publick good: that, in the oaths made by heirs, there is implied a solemn consent of their fathers, and an imprecation against them; so that they are as much obliged in conscience to see the thing performed, as those who formerly swore and promised it. That succession is conveighed to children by a certain instinct of nature, and not by any law of nature. That some things are founded on some natural reasons, yet not so as they cannot be changed, altered, or revoked. That one civil law may be abolished by another. That laws are arbitrary to those, in favour of whom they were made, &c.'

Should one be at the pains to read all the books that have been writ these thirty years, he shall find that the French have been fickle and inconstant, and that they have no regard to treaties, laws, or latter wills, when they find it their advantage to break or oppose them. And this certainly should excite all the powers of Europe, who have any regard to their own welfare, in the present juncture of affairs, to take just measures in favour of the house of Austria, against the power and avarice of France.

The French put a malicious gloss upon the prudent and wise constitution, which is to be seen in the canon law, touching renunciations confirmed by oath, Cap. Quamvis de Pactis; as if the author of the said constitution, either out of vain glory, or out of a design to strengthen the papal authority, had made that exorbitant decretal, and had endeavoured, by a new law, to confirm that dignity to which the see of Rome has attained, by cunning and deceit.

The Pyrenean treaty, which was so prodigal of the Spanish dominions to the French, and the sacredness of repeated oaths, by which France has more than once renounced all claim to the succession of Spain, now complain of being maltreated and trampled under foot, and of being quite altered and deformed by law quirks and school quibbles.

The present Pope ought to resent the contempt that is thrown on his predecessor, and on the see of Rome; since the contract of marriage, which is now thought null, had the apostolical benediction to give it the more force, and make it more solemn and sacred.

The French violate treaties, deny kings the power of making laws, slight wills and testaments, and, in a word, overturn all those things upon which the peace and security of society and government is founded. They have no regard to the publick good of Europe, and, provided they can but raise the glory and power of France, they do not care if the whole universe besides should perish.

Anno 1701.

The way to the universal monarchy is now more open to the King of France than ever, and it cannot be thought he will stop in his career which he has begun with so much craft and success, unless all the rest of Europe, sensible of the injuries done them by France, do stir up themselves, and, without losing time, examine what they are obliged to do in favour of the house of Austria, lest it should be deprived of its ancient patrimony, and lest Italy, England, Portugal, the United Provinces, and the rest of Germany, be robbed of their beloved liberties, and of their riches and glory. We heartily condole the fate of Spain, that it has been so villainously seduced to act after such a mean and sordid way, as it has done of late. That Spain, which has so long discovered the snares, and resisted the cruel designs of France, should now basely submit to it, yield herself a slave, and quite lose her former greatness and glory; which she must certainly do, if she do not suddenly and vigorously assist the house of Austria.

We do not in the least doubt, but that the evident danger, which the dominions and trade of other nations are in, will persuade them to act with all their might, in favour of the just cause of the house of Austria, and make them join together for their own safety and tranquillity.

Neither can we doubt, but that his holiness, according to his great prudence, does perceive the little regard the French have for keeping of peace, or observing of covenants and oaths; how much they profane the name of God and the holy gospel; how haughty they are in their threats; how insupportable their government is; how treacherously active they are in foreign courts; and what they are capable to undertake, if the Spaniards, who so long nobly resisted them, continue ingloriously to submit to them, and keep their neck under that intolerable yoke.

We deplore the scandal that must follow thereupon; we foresee the approaching danger of our neighbours, and severe calamities, which threaten some remote nations.

The Emperor Leopold, who was always peaceable, and a lover or justice, is enemy to none but the Turks, and that too only when they provoke him. He is the avenger of the Christian dignity, and a religious observer of laws, treaties, and oaths. But what should he do now, when he is robbed of his patrimonial right, which, upon many accounts, belongs to the house of Austria, and so insolently invade the fiefs of the empire? The other princes of Europe, who have been injured by France, must certainly see that there is no more effectual way to secure their peace and prosperity, than by bringing France down, and opposing of it with all their force.

For my part I stop here, and advise them only upon the account of the dangers with which they are threatened, and upon account of their safety, which is now in a very tottering condition, to remember what has been said of old, 'To make use of the present time.' Time runs away with rapidity and swiftness, and when men neglect the first opportunity, they scarce ever find such a one again.