A DIALOGUE Concerning the RIGHTS Of Her most CHRISTIAN MAJESTY. Licenced by Authority. In the Savoy, Printed by Thomas Newcomb 1667. IN a short time after the late Queen-Mother had paid all the Devoirs and Civilities which are usually performed on the like Occasions, to the Memory of the Catholic King her Brother, and the Queen his Widow; She sent for the Marquis De la Fuente the Spanish Ambassador, and let him know from her own Mouth, That amongst all the pains of a fatal Distemper into which she was fallen, she should yet think herself happy, and die with Comfort, If she could see a Peace firmly settled between the Two Crowns, so as not easily to be broken or interrupted. That from this Motive, without any other Interest than that of the Public Peace, she hearty wished, That Spain would be induced to give Satisfaction to the King her Son, in certain States and Dominions that were fallen to the Queen his Wife in the Low-Countries; since the refusal of a Right, so Natural and Legal, would inevitably cause Differences between the Two Kings: But she required him to write to the Queen her Sister, and to conjure her in her Name, That she would not lose any opportunity of employing the little remainder of her the Queen-mothers' Life, which she freely offered, for the putting an End to an Affair of such Importance to the Estate of the Catholic King her Son, and generally to all Christendom: Assuring her, That her Mediation would not be ineffectual with the King her Son, whose Goodness and Moderation she was so well persuaded of, as to promise herself, That from her Desires, and his own Inclinations to Peace, he would be induced a little to moderate his Interests. The Marquis De la Fuente undertook to write about it, but the Answer he had, after a considerable space of time, was, a precise Order, to declare to the Queen-mother (as he accordingly did) That the Queen his Mistress, would not upon any account whatsoever hear of any Accommodation in those pretensions which she took to have no appearance at all of reason, and so much the less, since the late King her Husband had forbid her by his Will, to alienate or dismember any part, not so much as one single Village or Hamlet of the Sovereignty of the Low Countries: And although so formal and positive a refusal, as this was, might from that instant have driven things to a resentment, yet the moct Christian King instead of executing his rights, was willing to suspend for some time the design of pursuing them, in the belief he had, that the Queen of Spain, would take care to be better informed about them, but at last perceiving that a longer patience might prejudice the interests of the Queen his Wife; Spain having already taken advantage of it, in exacting a new Oath from these Estates that were fallen to him, he is resolved to march and take possession of them, in a posture fit to assure the quiet of such of his subjects as shall be faithful to him, or to force the Rebellion of those that shall refuse to acknowledge him for their true and lawful Sovereign, and at the same time for the informing all Europe of the justice of his Rights, he has caused to be published a large Treatise, whereof the short discourse that follows is a faithful Abstract. A DIALOGUE Concerning the RIGHTS Of Her most CHRISTIAN MAJESTY. A French Advocate meeting in Brussels with Two others of the same Profession, one of them a Fleming, the other a German, they had together this following Discourse. French Adu. I Have frequently heard much talk of the Magnificence of this City of Brussels, but whatsoever Idea I form of it, I confess it was not equal either to the Grandeur or Beauty of what I see Flem. By your Accent, 'tis no hard matter to guests you are a Frenchman. Fren. 'Tis very true Sir, I am so. Flem. I wish you may find wherewith to satisfy your Curiosity; I should think myself happy, could I contribute any thing towards it. Fren. That you may easily do Sir, in helping me into the Palace, where the Courts of Justice usually sit, which is the only thing considerable in the City that I have not seen. Flem. I am the more willing to undertake to conduct you thither, because I have as much freedom there as you can desire. Fren. I am infinitely pleased with the favour you do me, but yet I fear I shall be troublesome to you. Flem. Fear not that, for who can be fit to do this small kindness for you, than an Advocate in a time of Vacation. Fren. You are then an Advocate, Sir? Flem. That's my Profession. Fren. You cannot tell me any thing that pleases me better, since 'tis mine also. Flem. I am much pleased with this our happy meeting; but may I take the boldness to ask you in what Court you practise? Fren. I cannot but satisfy your Curiosity; 'Tis in the Parliament of Paris. Flem. After this Declaration, I am almost ashamed to lead you where you desire: For (I am told) nothing can compare with the Dignity and Majesty of that August Parliament. Fren. Every place has its particular Beauties and Rarities: but, pray Sir, be pleased to do me the favour you promised me. Flem. Enter then, since you will have it so; for we are come insensibly to the Door. Fren. In truth I should have had reason to complain of you, had you concealed from me a place where I discover so much beauty. This Tribunal is very Magnificent, the place itself, methinks, has much of Greatness in it; and I doubt not, but it appears much another thing, when animated with yours and your brethren's Eloquence. Flem. 'Tis your Bar, Sir, that is the true Field of Eloquence, and not this place, where 'tis confined to too narrow limits; for all Causes here are discussed by writing, the Advocates never plead: yet I confess, since the Establishment of Peace between the Two Crowns, the Sciences begin to take their places: But of late, there is a flying Rumour of War, that somewhat troubles us, you may probably better inform us of it, since you come from Paris, from whence we have also this News. Fren. You surprise me much; for when I came from thence, which was about a Fortnight since, I can assure you, They were then intent upon nothing but Peace. Arts, which are the most noble Ornaments of a Peace, flourish there more than ever: The Sciences are cultivated with singular application. They are there reforming Abuses crept into Justice, correcting the Disorders in the Finances, establishing an excellent Polity. Now Manufactures take up and employ whatever Idleness before corrupted. Trade is encouraged, to take off the Superfluities of our own, and to supply us with the Abundances of Foreign Countries. Virtue is now perfecting her Conquest over Fortune, and Honours begin to be distributed only at the rate of Merit. In a word, The most Christian King purifies all things by the rays of a Wisdom wholly Divine, and recalls the happiness of the first Age of the World, which we had no knowledge of, but only in the Idea. Judge then, Sir, what foundation this noise of War can have, in the midst of so many Employments of Peace; but do me the favour, to tell me what Pretext they give out here for this War. Flem. They say, The King of France would re-enter upon some Dominions, that he pretends are fallen to the Queen his Wife; by the Decease of their Catholic Majesties, her Father and Mother, and of the Prince Don Baltazar, her only Brother by the first Venture. Fren. I do not understand that this can be the ground of a War; for if the Queen be well founded in Law as to her Titles and pretensions, 'tis not to be presumed that his Catholic Majesty will refuse his Sister that Justice which her Blood will require of him; or that the Estates that belong to this Princess, would forfeit their Allegiance to their natural Sovereign, to support the Ambition of a Stranger. Flem. But who shall be judge whether the pretensions of the Queen be well founded or not? Fren. Let the Law, let Reason, let the Customs of Places, let Examples and Practices observed in those countries'. Flem. In truth nothing can be more just than what you say, since no person will refuse to a Sovereign, what Nature and the Law gives him; for my part, I have a great desire to be so thoroughly informed in this business, that I may not do any thing that might be charged upon my honour and conscience. Do you know any thing, Sir, of these pretensions? Fren. I have seen in Manuscript a large Treatise upon that subject, composed at the most Christian Kings Command, by an intimate friend of mine, who shown it me. Flem. I much fear this Treatise finds no free passage in these quarters, but probably you remember the substance of it. Fren. I read it with so much pleasure and application, that I remember it as well as if I had been the Author of it. Flem. Pray do me the favour to impart some light to me, into an affair of such concernment to my duty and fidelity. Fren. Possibly, Prudence might incline me to pray your excuse, for matters of this nature are very tender, and are not to be discoursed of in all places and before all persons. Flem. Let me desire you, that this honest Gentleman in my company may not occasion your suspicion; when you know him, you will not repent of any discourse made in his presence; he is one of the best Civilians of Germany, who understands and speaks your Language very well. Fren. This will much add to my joy, to give you satisfaction in presence of so worthy a person; but the clearing of this point which you desire, will require some time. Flem. You may be as brief as you please, for amongst persons of our Profession, you need only touch upon the reasons, leaving the proof of them to be supplied and justified by farther Argument. Fren. Let us seat ourselves then, if you please, this matter deserves to be treated on at our ease; and since you desire it, and here is none to overhear us, we will rip up the whole business from the bottom. The Title of the Queen, as I have found by this Treatise, consists either in Money, or Lands and Dominions. Flem. What does she claim by? Fren. The Contract of Marriage between Elizabeth of France her Mother, with the late Catholic King, and the Customs of the place. Germ. To me it appears not that she is sole Inheretrix by the first Venture to the Catholic King. Fren. 'Tis true, there remained two Children, this Queen, and the Prince Don Baltazar, but that Prince dying under age after his Mother, she then remained sole Inheretrix. Flem. Is there much due to her in Money? Fren. At the least Eleven hundred thousand Crowns of Gold. Flem. 'Tis a vast sum. Fren. 'Tis easily computed there are due Five hundred thousand Crowns of Gold for the restitution of the Portion, One hundred sixty six thousand six hundred sixty six Crowns of Gold for the Augmentation of the Portion, One hundred thousand Crowns in Jewels given and brought along with her; besides the interest of all these sums for many years. Flem. Your computation may be good, but the Infanta could have but the moiety of this sum, the other belonged to the Catholic King, as heir to the Prince Don Baltazar his Son, to whom it fell in right of inheritance, from Elizabeth of France his Mother. Fren. You know Sir, that in Spain the Portion and the Augmentation are so peculiar to Children, that they mutually succeed one another, excluding Father and Mother a L. 1. tit. 11. de las Dotes, 4 Part. l. 23. & 31. ibidem. l. 15. Torre. So that the Catholic King has no pretention to Don Baltazar's part, to the Queen's prejudice, no more than he has to the value of the Jewels, because it was agreed they should be her own by the late Queen Elizabeth's contract of Marriage. Besides, supposing farther that he had a right to succeed Don Baltazar, yet had he lost it by his second Marriage, according to the Law 15 de Torre, which says, That the Survivor of the Man and Wife that Marries again, shall be obliged to restore to the Children of the former Marriage, all such Goods and Estates inheritable as shall have fallen to such person by the decease of any of the Children of the former Marriage. Germ. There is nothing to be replied to what this Gentleman has said; for, besides the Common Law of Spain, and the Law 15. de Torre, cited by him, the Civil Law disposes in the same manner against the Father and Mother in case of a second marriage b L. Foeminae, Cod. de sec. Nupt. L. Edict. Cod. eod. Flem. Let us come then to the Estate in Lands, and examine where they lie. Fren Those Lands to which a Right is pretended, comprehend the Duchy of Brabant, and its annexes; the Seignory of Malines, Antwerp, Vpper-Gelderland, Namures, Limburg, and the places united on the other side the ; Hainault, Artois, Cambray, the County of Bourgogne, and the Duchy of Luxembourg. Flem. What ground is there for all these high pretensions? Fren. The Queen affirms, that by the decease of Queen Elizabeth her Mother, and the Prince Don Baltazar her Brother, the property of all these Estates is fallen to her. Germ. 'Tis hard to comprehend how these Estates which belonged to the late Catholic King, should fall to the Infanta by the decease of her Mother and Brother, who were neither in Reversion or Possession. Fren. Wonder not at it; this happens by virtue of a certain Right of Devolution, which is inviolably observed by the greatest part of those Estates. Germ. This Right is not altogether unknown to me, for we have some Provinces in Germany that use it; but be pleased, Sir, to let me know after what manner it is observed and what effects it has amongst you? Fren. Very willingly; yet I ought first to let you know, that there is a clause in the Contract of the Queen's marriage, by which she is made to renounce all her present or future Right or Title, which I therefore tell you, that you may judge whether I have done well to entertain you with the mention of this Clause, before we enter upon the Title, or whether we should not rather proceed in the clearing of that. Germ. The observation is good and sincere, for my part I think it not amiss to begin with the Renunciation, for 'tis to no purpose to go about to prove a Title, where a Man can pretend to nothing. Flem. I am of the same Opinion; but besides, think it necessary that this Gentleman take the pains to recite exactly the Clause of the Contract. Fren. 'Tis true, things will be the clearer after the examination of that Clause, of which these are exactly the Terms; [That upon the effectual Payment made to his most Christian Majesty of sieve hundred thousand Crowns of Gold of the Sun, or their just value at the several times , the Serenissima Infanta shall rest satisfied, and content herself with the said Portion, without pleading hereafter any other Right or Title on her own behalf, or commencing any Suit or Demand, upon pretence, that any other greater Estate or other Inheritance, Accounts or Actions by reason of any Inheritances or greater Successions from their Catholic Majesties, her Father or mother, do or may belong to her, either in consideration of their persons, upon any other Account, Cause, ere Title whatsoever. Flem. Can there be any thing of greater force than this Clause? Fren. A little patience, & you shall see that nothing can be more weak, not to say more unjust than this. The Catholic King gives nothing at all in Portion to the Queen, and yet he makes her renounce her Inheritance. Which cannot hold good: A Renuntiation doth necessarily imply that a Daughter hath her Portion; for when she hath it not, she is not to be said to renounce, but to be disinherited: So the Decretal of Pope Boniface the 8th, which introduced the practice of Renuntiations, contrary to the Tenor of the Civil Law, which condemns them, requires that a Daughter that renounces, shall solemnly declare that she is content with the portion which her Father gives her in order thereunto a Quamvis pactum patris factum à filia, dum nuptui trad●batur, ut dote contenta nullum ad bona paterna regressum haberet, improbet Lex Civilis: Si tamen juramento, nec dolo, nec vi praestito firmatum fuerit, ab eadem omnino servari debebit, cum nec vergat in salutis aeternae dispendium, nec redundet in alterius detrimen●um. Sex decret. lib. 1. tit. de Pact. . So true it is that a Portion is the sole ground for a Renuntiation, which in Spain is so much the more out of doubt, as they have an express Law in the case, by which, if the Father gives less with his Daughter than the portion that the Law allots her out of his Estate, the Renuntiation is void b L. 11. 'tis. e●. de la sexta partida. . and the Doctors of that Country who have written upon that Subject, add, that it is so necessary that a Portion be made out of the Father's Estate, that though the Daughter become by some other means extremely rich, yet unless the Father give her a portion out of his own Estate, he cannot cause her to renounce; because the Portion being a burden, which Nature imposes upon the Estate of the Father, it is necessary that this Portion be a part as really of his Fortune, as his Daughter is of himself c Filia enim major renuntians haereditati parernae & futurae recepta dote ex bonis maternis, licet juramentum praestiterit, poterit ex causâ gravissimae laesionis agere ad pactl rescissionem, etenim nemo negare potest, quin in hoc casu gravissima & admodum inormis laesio contigerit, nec in hac specie locus est decisioni hujus capitis, cum in eo tractetur de filia renuntiante haereditati paternae recepta dote à patre ex bonis ipsius patris. Cou ar. sup. cap. quamvis in sex. de pact. L. 1. Relect. part. 3. Sect. 4. . Germ. This is a Principle, which to me seems well founded; to which I am the more easily persuaded, since the Emperor Justinian himself hath made an express constitution, importing that the Obligation of giving a Portion doth so naturally affect the Father's Estate, that he can never acquit himself of it out of the Estate of any other person, much less can he excuse himself, whensoever he is of ability to perform that Office, or rather Duty of his Blood. Flem. This Maxim is not (possibly) so unquestionable as you imagine; but whatsoever it be, I doubt whether it can be here applied to the case in hand. I always took it for granted that the Catholic King gave 500 thousand Crowns of Gold in Portion to the Infanta. French. Pardon me Sir, if I tell you that he never gave her any thing: I grant you that the Catholic King who owed his Daughter eleven hundred thousand Crowns of Gold, made a promise to her of five hundred thousand; but in the Contract he agreed with her, that upon payment of that Sum he would be quitted for all that was due to her in right of her Mother; now he that pays only five hundred thousand in lieu of eleven hundred thousand, is so far from giving the five, that he indeed retains six. Flem. Is not the Sum of five hundred thousand Crowns of Gold, a very honourable Portion? what matter is it from whence it proceeds? since 'tis a suitable one, and 'tis the Father that undertakes to pay it. French. Is it just, Sir, that a Father who is obliged to give a Portion out of his own Estate, should acquit himself by giving it out of another's, or out of the Daughters own? Pray tell me, do you believe that any Creditor can be legally satisfied for a just Debt, in paying him out of his own Estate? We know that the Law which obliges the Father to give a Portion, mentions an effectual one, raised, and levied out of his own Estate f Caput [quamvis] loquitur derenuntiatione facta illi à quo filia dotemcongruam accepit, cum renuntiationis fundamentum potissimum est ex receptione portionis congruae. Berugarius Fernandes. Lib. de renunt. Pater dotavit filiam de bonis uxoris: nunquid ista filia hibebit regressum ad bona paterna? Respondeo quod sic, quia ista cum effectu non est à patre dotata. Bald. in l. neque mater. Cod. de jure Dot. . For the payment of a Debt to a Daughter is not to give her a Portion: and generally where there is no gift there can be no Portion, and consequently no ground for a renunciation. For this reason, all the Doctors that have wrote upon the Decretal of Boniface VIII. agree that no renunciation doth lie but where the person, in favour of whom the renunciation is made, have a Portion out of his own Estate; because the Portion being the price, or rather the compensation of this renunciation, 'twould be unjust that a person should agree to a renunciation, that pays neither the price nor the compensation. g Non ex cluditur per renuniationem, nisi à successione dotantis; unde side propriis bonis filia fuerit dotata, non est excluss. Benedict. in Cap. Raynut. in Verb. Duas habens uxores. Caput [quamvis] debet intelligi qu●ndo filia renuntians recepit in bonis patris vel matris, illud quod succedit in loco legitimae, id est Dotem. Nam nihilo percepto esset inhumanum, quod per meram renuntiationem spoliaretur haereditate patterns, ex cujus bonis nihil percepit, & ●ss●. t dolus reipsa. Ancharanu● in Dict. Cap. Quamvis. . Couvaruvias puts the case of a Father that makes his Daughter renounce, though he gives no more in Contemplation of the Marriage than was already fallen to her in right of her Mother; and he resolves that this renunciation is so unjust, that it neither can nor aught to be put in Execution, of what Age soever the Daughter be, or what Oath soever she take at the renunciation. Montalua a Spanish Minister of State, and Berengarius Fernandes putting the same case, condemn this renunciation as unjust h Si filia habens penes patrem bon● matern● renuntiet haereditati p●ternae cum juramento, hâc appositâ pactione, ut pater ei det mille aureos pro do●e, erit intelligenda haec conventio in hunc modum, quod mille ●urei sunt dandi ex bonis paternis, non ex maternis. Covar. loco sup. cit. Montal. Comment. in leg. fori. lib. 1. tit. 2 l. 28. Berengarius Fernandes dict. loco. . And truly if it be clear upon all our Principles that an enormous, wrong and mischief does pleno ●ure annul all contracts wherein it is found, because it differs not from or amounts to a real fraud which the Laws do abhor. What then shall we think of that extreme mischief and wrong which a Daughter receives from her Father when he shall cause her to renounce without giving her a Portion, since by so doing he unjustly strips her of all her Birthright, and without giving her any thing of his own, deprives her for ever of all the hopes of a future inheritance; which if I may so term it, is the chief or first Appanage that Children are legally born to i Limita hanc D●cretalem non habere locum ubi puella renunciavit haereditati paternae cum juramento, si interveniat deceptio ultra Dimidium: nam ibi cessat Justitia cum sit evidens iniquitas, & dolus reipsa ita rescindit contractum sicut dolus ex proposito. Georg. Nat. in Cap. Quamvis de pact. in Sex. Tam gravis laesio non potest absque dolo vero alterius contrahentium contingere, qui rescindit omnino pactum. Couvar. dict. loco. Sect. 3. ? And truly Sir, I dare say 'tis almost as hard a matter to excuse the rigour of a Father who makes his Child renounce without giving her a Portion, upon pretence that she has an Estate by some other means, as it is absurd to authorise an outrageous Cheat in favour of him that did it, because the person that complains has Estate enough to bear it. Germ. This is a greater proof than needs amongst persons of our Profession. I think we need no farther trouble ourselves about the Renunciation, but proceed forwards to prove the Title. French. I will Sir, if you command me; but this I dare assure you that this first Argument against the Renunciation is the weakest of 8 or 10. which are to be seen in the Treatise made by the most Christian Kings command. Flem. Let us then run through them briefly, that I may be a little acquainted with them all. French. A second Nullity is this; the 500 thousand Crowns which were promised are not yet paid, though they ought to have been within 18 months after the Date of the Contract. viz. One 3d part on the day of Marriage, another within 6 month's next after, and the remainder within a year after the end of the six months. Germ. Is it possible that this Portion should never have been paid? Flem. I grant it still remains due. French. This only Argument is enough to destroy the Renunciation; for you know Sirs, that in all our Laws whensoever in any Contract there is any term prefixed, the very day of payment is a sufficient demand itself, and without any other if he make not payment, the Bargain or Contract is pleno jure dissolved; for there is this difference between a day prefixed by Law, and that which is agreed on by a Contract, that the first is only comminatory, but the last always fatal to the Debtor a Trajectitiae pecuniae, ff. de oblige. & act. L. ad diem. ff. de Verb. oblige. L. 9 sect. vel. ff. de Usur. L. 13. ff. de Fidei C. Lib. L. Magnam. L. 8. tit. 14. partid. 5. C. de Com. & cont. Empt. . Spain itself hath found this to be so just, that it hath made it into an express Law, which Montalua highly extols the justice of in his Commentaries: and the Civil Law hath so confirmed this Practice by a great number of Texts, that it absolutely rejects all offers that the Debtors should make after the Term is lapsed b Dict L Trajectitiae, etc. leg sup. Cit . Germ. This Principle needs no confirmation by citations of Law. French. It ought to be the more carefully observed in matter of Renuntiations, because when the Father dies without paying the Portion, the Daughter runs a great hazard in her Fortunes, contrary to the intent and end of Renuntiations, which were therefore only tolerated, because what the Father gives in money in lieu of a Portion, is ascertained and independent on any of those accidents that may disturb the Estate. You know likewise, that by another maxim in Law, if a Clause happen before its consummation to fall into such a state in which it could not have taken a beginning, it neither can or aught to be put in execution a L. 4. de de Donat. ante Nupt. ff. . So that the same reason which would have rendered the Queen uncapable of making a Renuntiation of the Catholic Kings Inheritance, had it been in view at the time of her Marriage, makes it now impossible to put it in execution, since our case is wholly the same by the nonpayment of the Moneys: Besides, the Portion not being paid during the life of the late Catholic King, by his death the Queen is reduced only to a bare promise of a Portion. But we well know, according to all our Rules, that actual payment and delivery only makes a Portion; the telling of the Money gives form to the Portion, says the Law, and not the promise b. Dotem Numeratio non scriptura dotalis instrumenti facit. L. 1. ff. de Dot. Caut. non Num. In fructibus à Viro retinendis neque dies dotis constitu●ae, neque nuptiarum observabitur, led quo primum dotale praedium constitutum est, id est tradita poffessione. L Dotale. ff. de fundo Dot. 1. And in another place, it formally decides the point, That he who hath not paid, hath not given a Portion, what Writing or Promise soever he hath made for that purpose, because a Portion consists only in the actual payment and delivery thereof. Gregory Lopez who hath commented upon the Laws of Spain, affirms, That only by the delivery of the portion a Daughter can be said to have one given her c Does incipit à traditione, non à promissione. in L. 22.4 part. de tit. 11. gl. 2. . In which point his opinion is conformable to all the Doctors: And amongst them Bartholus hath observed, that two things ought necessarily to concur to the validity of a Renuntiation; one, that the Daughter be married; the other, that her Portion be actually paid d Et sic requiritur quod fuerit dotata & dotem recepisset. in L. none since Cod. quae liberis. And Baldus suitable to the same Principles, hath said very pertinently, That a Portion, a Loan, and a Depositum are Contracts, whose Essence wholly consists in their execution, in that differing from others that are perfected by the bare agreement only of the parties; for as it were absurd to say that a bare promise to lend, or to deposit, were a Loan, or a Depositum; so it were as unjust to pretend, that a promise of a Portion were really a Portion c Idem in contra●u dotis, & ideo traditione secuta perfici●batur contractus. in L. Juris Gentium. . Germ. Had I the liberty to add any thing to these Reasons, I suppose it might be said, according to the opinion of one of the greatest Civilians of our time, That a Daughter which hath not her Portion paid at the decease of her Father, hath no more a Portion, than if she had never been promised any; her birth alone being a sufficient Title to make her hope for a portion: the Contract of Marriage cannot give her more than hopes, especially when she is obliged to disown all her Father's Estate for the payment of the Portion promised a Non est igitur Dos si cam promisero vel pollicitus fuero, sed si tradidero. Does sola traditione constitultur, non promissione. Cujat. in L. ult. God. de Rei uxor. act. Sect. accedis. . French. Without doubt these Nullities overthrow the very foundation of the Renuntiation, since they are drawn from the default of payment of the Portion, which is the Basis, and only necessary pretence for all Renuntiations. But if you consider that the Inheritances which the Council of Spain obliged the Queen to renounce, were fallen to her at the time of her Marriage, you will be easily convinced, that such a Renuntiation must needs be void of all appearance of reason; since there is not any Maxim more constantly and universally received in things of this nature than this, that Renuntiations are inconsistent with Estates already fallen, as being absolutely opposite to the very nature of them: for if it be true (as is before said) that nothing hath authorized them but only the consideration of a present and certain portion in lieu of an expectation only of an Estate, which the variable Revolutions of Fortune may defeat; how is that possibly applicable where an Estate is actually fallen? it consists no more now in expectation, but in an actual enjoyment and possession, which is no longer to be looked upon, as a reversion after the death of another, and so renounceable, but as the proper estate of the heir, who cannot alienate it but by sale, exchange, or donation. So also the Decretal of Bonifac● the 8th. speaks only of Estates that may fall; And because 'tis a Law directly opposite to common Right, we are by no means to extend it beyond the words thereof, but rather according to all the Doctors to limit and restrain it b Add Decretelem ipsam effroenem esse, & exo●bitantem ut ●â de causa exténdi extra propriamfacti spociem non debeat. Raph. ad L. 38. ff. de Verb. oblige. . Hence it is that by an unalter'd practice where a Renunciation is made to two inheritances, whereof one is already fallen, the other not; the last of them which only could have been lawful, is made null by a kind of infection from the other; so odious have Renunciations of Estates already fallen been always accounted c Quando agitur de Renuntiatione successionis sedulò distingui debent futura & jam delata. Valet renuntiatio successioni futurae secus in jam delatâ. Mol. sup. Council 29.3. Vol. Alex. . But more especially ought they to be so esteemed in this conjuncture, where they would apply it to Estates and Sovereignty's which were already fallen to the Queen at the time when they made her Renounce them; as if things of this kind could become a matter of humane commerce, in prejudice of that right which God has only reserved to himself, to distribute by the ways of blood and nature, of which he is the Author. And this is probably the reason which induced the Doctors, Palaes a Falfissimum est quod Reges possent haeredem & successorem in regno ellgere quem volunt, omisso filio primogenito velalio legitimo successore, quod est contra omnia jura & consuetudines omnium nationum involabiliter observatas. Par. 2. q. 1. Num. 57 & 58. , Couvaruvias b Rex non potest variare leges & conditiones primogeniturae in prejudicium successorum, nec facere quod alius pro alio succedat. , and Kinscot to affirm, that there cannot be a greater absurdity then to presume, that by private Contracts the order of succession to Sovereignty's can be changed; both because it being a matter of Public right, no particular Agreements can infringe it c Ljura sanguinis dereg. juris. L. jus Agnationis ff. de pactis. ; as also because such power is only in trust committed into the hands of Sovereigns, who ought necessarily to restore it to such a person as the Laws of State shall call to the Government. In short, if a Sovereign be permitted to make his Children Renounce, with how much more truth may it be said that he may in his Family change the Order of succession to his Dominions, by preferring the Younger before the Elder, or the Daughter before the Son; since much more power is required to make them Renounce the Inheritance, then only to change the Order of inheriting in his Family? Flem. Let us proceed, Sir, let us proceed. French. Hitherto Gentlemen, we have showed you several Nullities against Law: but now you shall see in two Clauses of the Renunciation, Errors against nature, which I am confident will a little surprise you. Flem. I impatiently expect these Clauses: for I do not remember that I ever read any such strange passages in the Contract. French. One of those Clauses import, that the Queen and her Posterity shall be for ever excluded from all the Estates which either are or shall ever be under the Dominion of Spain; so that if the Race of his Catholic Majesty should fail, Strangers are to be preferred before her and her Issue. The other imports, that this Princess shall not be excluded from all those rights, but only in case that she have Children by this Marriage with his most Christian Majesty: But in case she have none, her right shall be entirely preserved. I dare once more, gentlemans, challenge you in all your Readins by any instances in former Ages, to parallel these two Clauses, if not to say Prodigies. Flem. What is it that you find so strange in them? French. Renunciations were not introduced but for the preservation of Families; and yet by the first of these Clauses, the Father makes use of it only to the destruction of his Family, in preferring Strangers before his own Blood. Renunciations were never authorized but in favour to the Male-childrens, and yet by this clause 'tis extended not only in favour to the Daughters, but to the younger ones in prejudice to the Queen who is the Eldest. Pray tell me, can a Father more abuse a Renunciation then by making it an instrument to destroy his own Family contrary to the obligation and nature of all Renunciations, which are never permitted him but only to preserve it? But again, what is the meaning of the latter Clause which disinherits the Queen in case she have no Children: but that Spain would turn the blessing which Heaven might bestow upon this Glorious Marriage into a curse? Certainly Nature which always tends to the Conservation of the species, cannot without a blush behold so Exorbitant a Clause, which would prefer barrenness before fruitfulness. Marriage, which only proposes to its self the birth of Children, cannot endure the scandal of disinheriting a Mother for having Sons and Daughters, which are the blessings of Heaven. The Canon and Civil Laws, which are so severe against whatsoever shall touch upon the liberty, honour or fruitfulness of Marriage; cannot without horror behold a Clause so injurious to the intention and dignity of Marriages, especially this which is one of the most August and Renowned under Heaver. Methinks such policy cannot expect other than the disdain of all the World, which reduces the Illustrious Princess to the hard choice of mourning all her days a Barrenness, that would hinder her from being Mother to a King of France, or a fruitfulness by Marriage which would cut her off from being Queen of Spain: But this also exposes the whole Monarchy of Castille to Civil and Intestine Wars, which are not like to end but by the ruin and destruction of that Crown: For supposing the Catholic King should die in his minority, at a time when the Queen should have Children by the most Christian King, and that afterwards these Children die; shall the Queen by virtue of this Clause go and disinherit her younger Sister who shall have taken possession of the Crown and received their Homages accordingly? Germ. This Clause does infinitely surprise me. Flem. Yet 'tis not without precedent, since in the year 1615. Anne of Austria Infanta of Spain made the like Renunciation, by her contract of Marriage with Lewis the 13. King of France. French. This example reaches not at all our Case. For Anne of Austria had 4 Brothers of the whole blood, at the time of her Renunciation, viz. Philip, Charles, Ferdinand, and Alphonso; whereas Maria Theresa our Princess had none, she being the sole remainder of that bed. Anne of Austria had no estate fallen to her. Maria Theresa had the inheritance of her Mother, & Don Balthasar her Brother, which then became hers. Anne of Austria received of the pure bounty of her Father, the five hundred thousand Crowns of Gold given her for her Portion. Maria Theresa had due to her in a debt upon account the sum of 500000 Crowns of Gold promised to her in satisfaction for the Marriage Portion of Queen Elizabeth her Mother. Anne of Austria received her Portion by way of exchange for another of the same value made to Elizabeth of France, who was the same day Married to the Prince of Spain, since King Philip the 4th. Maria Theresa never received any part of what was promised her. In fine, Anne of Austria renounced upon a pretention which cannot be found in this case, for there being then a double Marriage made between France and Spain; the Spaniards who affected much to have an equality observed between both parties, agreed that Anne of Austria might be excluded from the Crown of Castille, as Elizabeth of France was from that of France by the Salic Law, which admits of none but Males. You see then how much these Instances differ: besides, this example stands alone against the practice of all former Ages, and against the Fundamental Laws of State; for it cannot be found either in Spain, England, Scotland, Swedland, or any other Sovereignty's that are inheritable by Females, that any of their Daughters were ever obliged by their Marriage to renounce their hopes of succession to the Crown in the Order it should fall to them. Louis VII. and Lovis VIII Kings of France Married with Infantas of Spain, and no such Renunciation ever required. The 3 Daughters of Ferdinand King of Spain, the 4 Daughters of Philip the I. the 2 Daughters of Charles the V the 2 Daughters of Philip II. the 6 Daughters of Ferdinand I. all of them Infantas of Spain, and Married to Foreign Princes, never made any Renunciation: so that this one only example is so far from authorising this procedure of Spain, that on the other side this particular instance of a double Marriage then contracted, and the want of an actual Estate fallen to the person of Anne of Austria, carries with it such an exception as confirms the justice of all ancient example: besides, that which was never, but once done, is not to be drawn in to precedent, especially on this occasion, where the Renuntiation made by Anne of Austria, being essentially null, can give them but little advantage, because an Act passed contrary to public Right, and the Fundamental Maxims of a State, ought not to be drawn into an Example or Consequence. Flem. I confess the Example is rare; but is not the happiness of a public peace, and the Ratification of the Clause by the King of France sufficient enough to cover the faults that may be found in the Ratification? French. Such kind of Agreements will rather violate, than establish a peace: and I may say further, that 'tis a profanation of it, to make it instrumental to destroy the Rights of Blood, which are the strongest bonds of Peace and Union among Sovereigns; But can any thing seem stranger, than to say, that in favour of a Peace, the Queen and her posterity are to be deprived of all their Birthrights? And that the Catholic King her Father and Tutor may retain all that he enjoys of her Estate to bestow it upon his Children by a second Venture? Pray, be pleased to tell me, what affinity there is between the Peace and Renuntiation. The Treaty of Peace speaks not one word of it; and the powers given to the Pleni-Potentiaries for concluding it, speak not in any wise whatsoever either of the Renuntiation or Marriage. As to the most Christian Kings Ratification, that might have some consequence, had there been no other Nullity in the Queen's Renuntiation, but only the want of the King her husband's Authorization of it a confirmatur res invalids si ejus perfectioni object solum dissensus habencium ratum, alioqui si alia obstarent non confir maretur ratihabitione. Damasc. tr. De Broc. membr. 3. Nurse 7 Ratihabitione non valid ●ur id quod nu lum est. Az lib. 15. tit. 21. . But can any one think that a Renuntiation made by a Minor, to the advantage of the Father and his other Children by a second Venier, without any Portion paid, without liberty, without knowledge, and without Authorization, in the case of an Estate already fallen to her, which in its own nature is inalienable, can be made good by the Husband's Ratification? This supposed, the Decretal hath little reason to say that a Renuntiation is void, where the Daughter hath no portion given her. For since every Woman is authorized by her Husband, by the Contract of Marriage for all the Articles therein contained; Never any of that Sex can complain of any Renuntiation that can be exacted, because of the obvious objection of a fo●mal Authorization and Approbation of the Husband, by the Contract of Marriage. But on the other side, if it be plain, that an Husband cannot in any manner alienate the Right or Estate of his Wife, how then can it be possible that the most Christian King can by his Ratification make the Queen his Wife lose those Estates and Sovereignty's which she herself had not power to alienate? Give me leave to say, that it cannot be believed without a manifest violence to Reason, that a Ratification of the Husband is of greater force and efficacy than the Wives personal Renuntiation, to deprive her of her Rights. But after all this, Spain having since the marriage of the Infanta obtained that Renuntiation by some private Acts, which they never yet durst show, who can imagine that his most Christian Majesty hath legally ratified, without seeing them, since according to all our Principles, and according to the very Essence of a Ratification, such an Act requires a perfect knowledge a Ad hoc ut ratificatio sibi vindicet locum, oporter, ut ille qui vult hab●re ratum, sciat & cognoseat, & comprober quod factum est alias. Nemo quod ignorat approbat & ratum habit. Lancel. tract. de attended. cap. 1. Num. 72. . and that the Act so ratified be presented in a good and sufficient Form. Germ. I always conceived that the Infanta had made her Renuntiation by her Contract of marriage: was it not so? French. Indeed those Ministers that treated of this Marriage in absence of the parties agreed amongst themselves, that the Infanta should make a Renuntiation, but it was not drawn till afterwards, and in Instruments which France never saw. Flem. Pray Sir let us stay no longer upon this Renuntiation, but return to the Title and Pretensions of the Infanta. French. I am content, though there are several other Arguments behind; but the minority of the Infanta, the quality of the Father, being the person of his Catholic Majesty, the agreement made in favour of his Children by his second Wife; want of power in the Ministers that made that Agreement, and consented to the Renuntiation, and the nullity of the Ratifications made by the Queen since her Marriage without the authorization of his most Christian Majesty, are all of them powerful Arguments, and fully handled in the Manuscript that I have seen. Germ. What need have we to insist any longer upon the Renuntiation? This Gentleman hath sufficiently assured you that he rests satisfied, when he desired you to go on to the Rights themselves: And for my part, I assure you I have nothing to object, after so many Reasons which you have taken the pains to show us. French. Upon your desires I return to the Rights themselves; which consist, as I told you, in the Duchy of Brabant, with its Annexes, the signory of Malines, Antwerp, upper Guilderland, Limbourg, and its united places, Namur, Haynault, Artois, Cambray, Burgundy, and Luxenburg. Germ. You told us, that the greatest part of these Pretensions were founded upon a Right of Devolution practised in several of these Dominions: Be pleased to tell us the nature of it, and what effect it hath amongst you, for the better handling and clearing of this Subject. French. By this Right of Devolution, if one of the married persons die, the Children issuing from that Marriage are seized in property of all the Fiefs that belong to the Survivor. So that if the Husband survives, he becomes only Tenant for life to his own Lands, the Property belongs to the Children, though the Mother had no Title at all. Germ. Is there no particular Law at all in force concerning this Custom? or doth this Right spring merely from usage? French. In their Customs or Common Law there are express Texts for it. Germ. Let us if you please, particularly examine them, and begin with Brabant, which is the noblest, and most important of all the Dominions. French. These are the words of the Custom as far as my memory will give me leave, and as near as I can translate them out of Latin. * Si Vir vel Uxor quibus liberi supersunt, moritur, ad prolem unam vel plures per separationem thori proprietas feudorum provenentium ex latere Superstitis, devolvitur, servato superstiti solummodo feudorum usufructu hereditario. Cap. 1. Art. 2. If a man or woman die, leaving Children behind them, by this separation of Marriage, the property of the Fiefs, though they come by the Survivor, doth devolve, or [pass to the Child, or Children born by that Marriage] the Survivor becoming only Tenant for Life. Germ. Lunderstand it well. But as there are many Laws which have been abrogated by some contrary Custom, may not this be so too? French. 'Tis so far from that, that no Custom is more carefully observed than this. Kingscot, Chancellor of Brabant, who died in the year 1608. whom we may justly style the Oracle of his Country, writeth, that by the Custom of that Duchy the property of Fiefs whether patrimonial, or otherwise acquired, do at the very instant of the dissolution of Marriage, pass to the Children of the first bed, leaving no manner of pretence to those that shall be born of the second b Consuetudine generali Brabantiae, proprietas bonorum seudallum devolvitur ad prolem, dissoluto eo Matrimonio, quo stante bons ejusmodi suere unius vel alterius conjugum, five sint patrimonialia, five acquisits, its ut proles secundi Matrimonii in successione Parentis, qui Superstes fuit, nihilex talibus bonis consequatur. Resp. 65. Nu. 1. . Christineus, a famous Doctor of that Nation, affirms, that a devolution made by the death of one of the married persons, doth (as it were) anticipate the succession in favour of the Children by the first Venture, absolutely excluding those of the second c Notandum hic est quod devolutio bonorum quae sit per mortem alterius conjugum fieri censetur quasi per anticipationem successionis, quoad proprietatem tantum. In Concil. Meklin. tit. 16. Art. 4. in addit. . Frederick de Saved, in a Chapter which he expressly made upon the chief Customs of Brabant, tells us, that in respect to the first Marriage, and in favour to the Children begotten in it, this Right of Devolution hath been introduced and observed in that Duchy with more than ordinary Religion and exactness d Ob honorem primarum Nuptiarum, & favorem priorum liberorum, Brabantiae moribus introductum esse, ut matrimonio post morcem alterius Conjugum soluto, tam Superstitis quam defuncti feuda deferantur communibus liberis, salvo tamen Superstiti usu fruct. feudorum ab ipso profectorum, sive ex haereditate sibi obvenerint, sive ex industriâ quaesiverit. In Cons. Feud. Gueldriae & Zutphanioe tit. 1. Numb. 1. Sect. 9 . The Judgement lately given at the great Council of Malines, in the Count de Bergues case; and that latter one concerning the Marquisate of Berg. of some adjudged to the Countess D'Auvergn upon the death of her Father, though the Marquisate came by her Mother, are unquestionable proofs of the practice of this Right of Devolution: And his most Christian Majesty putting this Case to one of the most famous persons of your Brethren, but under borrowed names, he gave his Judgement in favour of the Daughter of the first Bed, against the Son and all the Children of the second. Germ. It being so, where lies the difficulty, since that custom is conformable to Law, and the 'tis manifest His Catholic Majesty was in possession of Brabant, at the time of the Dissolution of his first Marriage? Flem. The difficulty lies in 4 principal points which it will concerns us to clear, before we proceed further to the business of the Title. French. What, Sir, are these 4. Difficulties? Flem. The first is, that the Local Customs cannot be a rule to the Inheritances of Sovereignty's. The second, that the Devolution being not an actual and effective right, but only a bare expectance which could not be completed till the death of the Survivor; the Infanta might make a good Renunciation. The third, that the Estates of the Low Countries were reunited into one body by the Pragmatic [or solemn Constitution] of Charles the 5th in the year 1549. and cannot be enjoyed but by one person, and he a Sovereign. The 4th is, that the Catholic King leaving behind him a Son, though by a second Venture, he excludes the Daughter of the first from the inheritance in question. Germ. I confess I did not foresee these Objections, which notwithstanding appear to be very Solid and Essential. French. I must give you satisfaction in them, but I believe in truth, they are rather proposed to try my skill in their solution, then that there is really any difficulty in them. For I am persuaded, that this Gentleman is better versed in the Histories of his Country, and a person of greater judgement then to propose them seriously. The very Records of Brabant inform me, that the right of Devolution established by the Custom of Brabant, is so exactly observed in the succession of the Sovereign, and even in regard of the Sovereignty itself, that about the year 1230. a dispute arising between the Duke on one side, and his Son on the other; and the question being put whether the Duke possessing that Duchy in his own right, had not lost the property of it upon the Decease of the Duchess his Wife, by Virtue of the Devolution; The Emperor Henry assembled all the Princes of his Court, and after a charge given in as ample a manner, as a cause so famous could require; at length by the advice of his Council gave sentence, that the property belonged to the Son upon the decease of his Mother, although she had no manner of right whatsoever upon her own account, prohibiting the Duke from proceeding further in it to the prejudice of his Children a Henricus Dei Gratia Rom. Rex semper Augustus: omnibus ad quos praesens scriptum pervenerit gratiam suam & omne bonum. Notum facimus, quod cum Henricus majot filius Illustris principis Ducis Loather. matram habuerit & illa sit mortua, per sententiam principum in Curia nostra est judicatum, quod si idem Dux, de bonis quae possider, aliquid alienaret, vel in manus vellet transferre alienas, dictus Henricus se de iisdem bonis posset intromittere & occupare licenter ad usus suos & tenere. Datum Fridbergae an. gratiae 1230. ptox. Dom. post Festum Paschae. 4. Cal. Maii. Indict 3. Bukenheph. de Brahant. . I have read also in the same Records a letter of 1273▪ written by the Emperor Rodolph I. to John Duke of Brabant, in which he strongly confirms the Virtue of this right of Devolution in the succession of the Dukes; and it cannot be denied but that the Emperor Charles the Fifth, after the death of the Empress his Wife, so fully acknowledged, that the property of Brabant was passed into the person of Philip his Son by this right of Devolution that he publicly protested, he could neither confirm the Customs nor meddle with the Privileges of the Country, but jointly with his Son. But if from examples we proceed to argument in the examination of the power of Local Customs, in relation to the inheritance of Sovereignty's, nothing can be more easily proved; for there are only three sorts of Laws that can be of use to regulate Sovereignty's. That of a Sovereignty itself, if it have any particular Law to guide it; The Laws of the Neighbouring Kingdoms, or those of the Country. As to the particular Laws of each Crown, 'tis certain that where any such are, they are necessarily obliged to follow them; as in France, the Salic Law; in Poland, and several States in the Northern parts, their form of Election: But where no particular Law can be found, I affirm that 'tis the worst of errors to pretend, that the succession to a Sovereignty ought not to be regulated by the custom of the Country, because in such a case they would be obliged to regulate themselves by the Law and Customs of their Neighbours, which were to offer a great injury to the Sovereignty; or to affirm that it ought not to have either Rules or Principles to determine to whom it of right belongs, which would be the most strange absurdity in the World. For never yet did any Doctors either of Spain or any other Nation whatsoever, make a doubt of the force and power of Custom, in regulating the succession of such Sovereignty's as have no particular Law to direct them: Witness Molina. Gatieres' and Couvaruvias who unanimously assure us that the Crown of Spain being the chiefest Majorasque of the Kingdom, it ought indispensably to conform to the Laws introduced by the Customs of the County, for the Majorasques a Ipsum Hispaniarum regnum verissimum Majoratum esse ad praecisum ordinem primogeniturae; hoc autem adeo verum est, ut secure & confidenter dici possit non solùm Hispaniarum regnum, verum majoratum esse, imo regnum ipsum esse caput omnium Hispaniorum primogeniorum, ab eoque caetera primogenia tanquam à capite derivari, succedendique rationem accipere, adeo ut si de succedendi ordine in Hispaniae majoratibus contendatur, ea lis fit secundum leges ad regni successionem institutas decidenda. L. 16. cap. 20. Nu. 10. Joan. Gat. cap. 4. lib. 10. cap. 14. Nu. 58. & 59 ●ouuar. Var. resol. lib. 3. cap 5. Nu. 8. . But that which may deceive the common people in things of this nature, is the confounding the person of the Sovereign, with the Laws of his Sovereignty; though they are two things infinitely different. For as to the Sovereign himself, so long as he lives, his Reason is the very Soul of the Customs; but as to the Laws belonging to the Sovereignty, vacated by the death of the Prince, the Custom is then the soul and lise, and that which gives it motion, by which it passes into the hands of him that is legally to receive it, at a time when there is no particular Law that can convey it. In a word, you are to consider that we treat not here of a Sovereignty, as such, but as an inheritance; not of a Royalty living, but of one dead and without life; which is not in this case an active power to make Laws, but a Fief, an Inheritance, a Right, a Succession which ought to have its certain Rules, but cannot have any other than the general Custom of the Country, where it hath no particular Law of its own. Germ. They have the same practice in the Estates of Germany. French. You may say, Sir, if you please, in all the Nations of the world that are governed by reason. To go on, I doubt not but you were as much surprised as I was, to hear it objected, that the Queen might make a firm Renunciation of that which was fallen to her by right of Devolution, it being (as 'twas said) but a bare expectance and not a real right fallen to her. For besides that the Renunciation which she was made to make cannot be justified, as appears by all the reasons formerly examined; you know that according to the 2d Article of this Custom which introduces Devolution, the Children that issue from the Marriage are seized of the property, in the very instant of the decease of either Man or Wife, and from that very moment the Survivor becomes only a Tenant for life; so that he cannot have any thing to do with the property, as was decided by that famous judgement of the Emperor and all the Princes of his Court in the case . And you know too, that all the Doctors that have writ of it, call this Title, a succession anticipated; which is very opposite to a simple and bare expectance. Flem. 'Tis a strange thing that you should dispute this point with me, for it is a certain truth that Children cannot thus dispose of an Estate, nor enjoy it unless they survive their Father and Mother, and consequently all the right they have is only a bare expectance of the thing, in case they are heirs to the survivor of man or wife. French. Sir, if you please let us use less partiality and more freedom, your Custom says, that after the decease of one of the Married persons, their common Children are made proprietors of the Fiefs of the survivor; It order further, that if the Children themselves die before such survivor, the property of the Fiefs, that was before lost by right of Devolution, reverts to the said survivor. All your Doctors agree that by virtue of this Right the Children are so effectually seized of the inheritance, that the surviving Parent cannot in any manner dispose of it, no not so much as alter or lessen it: To conclude, it hath been judged in the Imperial Chamber at Spire, that a Father who gave no other Portion to his Daughter but out of an Estate that was devolved by the death of his Wife, should not be held to have given her a Portion, because the Estate did not belong to him, but to the Daughter; and yet in despite of all these Authorities, you would make us believe that this right of devolution transfers neither the property of the Fiefs or any thing at all that is real to the Children by such Marriage. If it be so, you ought to abolish your Customs, condemn your Doctors, and overthrow all Usage; For though the Children cannot dispose of, nor enjoy the Estate during the life of the survivor; this does not make them to be the less proprietors. As 'tis in matter of Dower or Donation, made in case the Donee survive; The Children of the Wife endowed and the Donees are the true proprietors although they cannot enjoy nor dispose of what is given them, till after the death of the Father or Donor. Flem. I deny not but Custom, the Doctors and Decree of the Imperial Chamber of Spire, give the property to the Children of the Survivor. But have you not seen a Treatise of the Right of Devolution, printed not long since at Brussels? Fren. Is it not that which was composed by an Officer of his Catholic Majesty in the Council of Brabant? Flem. The very same. Fren. I have read it. Flem. You have seen then how he proves that the Custom is ill expounded, that the Doctors are deceived, and that the Imperial Chamber of Spire understood not the nature and the effects of the Right of Devolution. Do ye not allow him to be an able man? Fren. Not only that he is very able, but I add, that he appears to be a very honest man, for one may discover throughout his work a kind of sincerity, which is better than all the Learning in the world. Have you observed with what Ingenuity this Author, who hath no small Talon, in avoiding and putting by difficulties, hath spoken of the Devoltuion? He grant 'tis a Privilege of the first Marriage against the second a Apud omnes quidem Gentes cultiores, est aliquis honos & praerogativa primârum Nupriarum & liberorum qui ex iis geniti sunt: Sed nusquam tanta quam apud Brabantos & Vicinas aliquot Nationes, apud quos dissoluto primo Matrimonio, five secundum sequatur, five non, liberis ipsius thori obveniunt bone omnia immobilia utriusque Parentis, etc. Stockm. cap. 1. fol. 1. He agrees that the Effect of this Right is to seize the Children from the very moment of the Dissolution of Marriage b Devolutio Ratim à soluto matrimonio bona Superstitis parentis liberis addicit. Stockm cap. 4. fol. 31. He confesses, that the Children by the second Bed can pretend to nothing in prejudice of those by the former c Liberi primi conjugii excludunt liberos secundi ab eorundem bonorum successione, etc. Stockm. cap. 1. fol 7. And he acknowledges also, that a daughter by the first Venture excludes a son by the second d Jus devolutionis quod viget inter privatos adeo benignum est liberis primi thori, & ita alienum à liberis secundi thori, ut si contingat unicam superesse filiam ex primo, & masculum ex secundo, filia masculum omnino excludat à boni● devolutis, etc. Stockm. cap. 18 fol. 126. For my part, I see nothing that is more honest than the sincerity and plain dealing of this man. 'Tis true, he accuses the Customs, the Doctors, and the Imperial Chamber of Spire, to be all in an error e Fol. 9 12, 13.44.47. & 121. Annal. lib. 1. fol. 6. But how could he say less in the necessity imposed on him to speak somewhat in behalf of the Cause which he was to defend? Or rather how could he more clearly condemn it, than by confessing that it was manifestly contrary to the words of their Custom, to the Opinion of their Doctors, and to the Decrees of the most principal Assemblies of Germany? Germ. I should much desire to see this Book: for I confess these Acknowledgements may have some Force. French. If this Gentleman pleases to take the pains to send for it, I will show you all these places. Flem. Do you thus take your advanvantages? You say you think him sincere, and yet you will not believe him when he tells you that the Custom and the Doctors were mistaken. French. Give me leave to tell you again, that I believe he is sincere, it doth not hence follow that he is infallible; or that I ought to prefer his particular Opinion before the Suffrages and general Opinion of all the States together assembled: Had he proved by his Book, That the Laws, the Doctors, the Practice and the Decrees ought to give place to his Judgement, I should have been far from opposing it; but that he had forgot to do Flem. Let us go on Sir, what do you answer to the Pragmatic in 1549. which reduced all the Estates of the Low Countries into one Mass and Body, not to be possessed but by one person, and that a Sovereign? French. Excuse me if I tell you that if you had made this Proposition in public, you would have been disowned by all the States. Since nothing is more contrary to the History, or to the desires of those Provinces. In sum, have you forgotten that which is so frequently repeated in your Annals? That this Emperor had indeed a design to reunite into one only Body of a Monarchy all these Sovereignty's, which he intended for the Prince Don Ferdinand, one of his Sons; but he found such a public and invincible opposition in the spirits of the people; and on the other side, the diversity of their Laws and Customs seemed an obstacle of such difficulty to be passed over, that he presently gave it over. The words in which I read it in the learned and judicious Grotius are still in my memory, and I believe may be of much use to disabuse you. Charles the fifth, (says he) resolved formerly to change the state of the Government of the Country, entertaining the design at that time, when (as the fruits of his Victory at Pavia) he saw Flanders and Artois freed from the Sovereignty of the Kings of France; but he found their Manners, Laws, and Usages so very contrary to his Design, that he despaired of success, and quitted the thoughts of it, scarce adventuring to propose it. If you have any scruple remaining after this Authority, be pleased to remember, That Philip the second, Son to Charles the Fifth, in the confirmation made by him, of the Privileges of Brabant, says, That the only Estates which should for ever be united with Brabant, were Limbourgh, Antwerp, and those beyond the ; and that the same Prince giving a Portion to the Infanta Isabel of all the Sovereignty's which he possessed in the Low Countries, forbidden her to divide or separate them without his consent; which he would not have done, had they been all united and incorporated by the Pragmatic of Charles the fifth, in the year 1549. Besides this Pragmatic speaks not one word in the Enactive part of it, of this Union, nor is there any Author that ever spoke of it: but on the contrary, we see that his Catholic Majesty puts all these Titles separately into his own, & hath a peculiar seal for every one of these Estates in particular. So true it is that he enjoys them divisively. But whosoever shall read the Pragmatic, will clearly find that it was made only for the introducing the Jus Representationis into the Inheritance of the Sovereign, to hinder those States, which for want of this way of succeeding were exposed to frequent changes, from being easily divided by the difference of their Customs, of which some admitted, but others rejected this Jus Representationis, which is directly opposite to the Union alleged; for had there been an Union, it had been to no purpose to introduce the Jus Representationis to hinder them from the frequent Alterations into which they might fall should this Jus Representationis cease, whose effect or consequent cannot be said to be that of collecting and limiting things separated; Otherwise since the general way of succession in the world is by this Jus Representationis, all Inheritances would become inseparable. That which may then most rationally be gathered from this Pragmatic, is that the succession to Sovereignty's is regulated by Custom, where there is no other particular Law to guide it, since the Emperor Charles the Fifth, to put an end to the power of Custom in his House, as to the point of Representation, was forced to assemble all the Estates of the Country, and to make a solemn Pragmatic for it. I come now to the last Objection, which concerns the preferring of the Son by the second Bed, before the Daughter by the first; and since I perceive you hold it for the most specious of all, I intent in few words to let you see, that in point of Argument, it is of all others, the most unjust: that in the order of Succession in Brabant it is impossible. And lastly, that the Custom contradicts and condemns it by most express Articles. Flem. If you prove all these things, I shall willingly come over to your side, but I very much doubt you cannot do it. French. You will not deny, but that the Right of Devolution is a Favour which the Customs bestow upon the first Marriage, against the second. Doctor Sandeus hath wrote, that this Law was made in respect to the first Marriages, and in favour to the Children issuing from them a In Consuetud. Feud. Gueldriae & Zulphan. tr. 1. tit. 1. Sect. 9 . Christineus b In Consuetud. Meklin. tit. 16. art. 4. in addit. says, that second Marriages do so much change and lessen the advantages and affections of the former, that Custom thought it justice to allow them a Compensation, by introducing the Right of Devolution: And Kinscot affirms, that this Compensation is a thing so sacred, and so carefully reserved for the Children by the first Bed, that thereby the second can have no pretensions to it, so long as there remains any one person of the first c Resp. 65. Num. 1. . This then being so, can it be thought, that a Right only established in favour to the first Marriages, in opposition to the second, may be forced away from the Children of the first Bed, who are seized by Custom, to be bestowed upon those of the second, against whom it was founded? You must not, by your Favour, take the advantage here of the Prerogative of Sex; for in matter of Devolution there is no comparing of Sexes, so as to give the advantages to the more Noble of them; but the Order of Marriages is there considered; where the Prerogative is given to the first, against the latter. pray tell me to what purpose would it have been to grant the Children by the first bed a right to defend themselves from any prejudice they might receive from a second, if they should be obliged to render and give it up to the Children by the second? In fine take this one reason for all, that Devolution being a kind of penalty and a fence against the second Marriages in favour to the first, it can never be that the first should be deprived of it in favour of the second, because that would contrary to Nature turn reward into punishment, and punishment into reward. I say then that your preference, upon debate, is very unjust. But to go on, I add that 'tis morally impossible in the Order of Succession in Brabant: my reason is, because the Children by the first bed being seized at the very instant of the Dissolution of Marriage, of the property of all the Fiefs of the Survivor, the Father is not in possession of the property at his second Marriage, nor of the Succession at his death, and consequently 'tis impossible that a Child by the second bed should succeed him in it. For if we would prefer the Son by the second bed, before the Daughter by the first, 'twould be necessary that the Fief were at the Father's disposal at the time of his death, because none can succeed to that which belonged not to the deceased: so that being stripped of the whole property, and becoming only Tenant for life, 'tis absolutely impossible that he should leave that to the Children by the second Marriage, which he was out of the possession of at the time when he contracted the Marriage from which they issue. But for the better clearing of this Argument, let us say (if you please) that the Custom having by the right of Devolution seized the Children of the first Marriage of the property of the Fiefs which were the Survivors; if we would have the Son by the second bed succeed, 'twere necessary that the property should again revert to the Father, and that the Child by the first bed should be disseised; which can only be done these three ways; Either by the rule of Custom, or by the will of the Survivor, or by Common Right. But you will not say that the Custom which has given this Right to the first bed, does deprive it of it to bestow it on the second Marriage, from which its only meaning and intent was to take it away. It cannot also be said that the Survivor who was disseised of it, had a power to recall it from the first bed, and to pass it over to the second; and as to Common Right we know that all its inclination, as well as all its rules and ordinances, tend to the favour of first Marriage against the second. Conclude we then, that your preference is impossible in the order of Succession in Brabant, and give me leave for a close to show you, that 'tis condemned by an express Ordinance of the Custom of the Country. This Custom distinguishing between Fiefs which belonged to the Survivor at the instant of the dissolution of the first Marriage, and those which fell to him, or were acquired by him since his second Marriage; declares by its second and third Articles, that the Children by the first bed shall leave the property of all Fiefs possessed by the Survivor at the time of the decease of the other person that was joined in Marriage; and expressly orders that the Brethren and Sisters of this Marriage succeed one another therein. This being pre-supposed, is not your preference directly contrary to this Law? since by it the Son by the second bed, against the very words of this Text, would hinder the Sister from succeeding her Brother by the first bed; and you say Kinscot that Great Chancellor of Brabant hath very precisely said, that never any Children by the second bed could make any demand of the Fiefs whilst any one of the first was living, which is also confirmed by Christineus and Sandeus, when they tell us, that this right of Devolution is not to be applied but to such Children as were in common between the Deceased and the Survivor: But you have the less reason to deny these truths, since being of that Country, you know that 'tis the General rule of all these Customs to prefer the Daughter of the first bed before the Son of the second; and that indeed that of Haynault, Malines, Namur, and divers others have made several express Articles of it. Flem. It will follow then, that against the order of Nature, as well as against that of the General Polity of all the world, the Brother must obey the Sister. French. Pardon me, for the Catholic King will command in his own Estates, and the most Christian Queen in hers, and neither of them have Dominion over the other. I add too, that by your own acknowledgement, this is always the practice in Brabant, for the Daughter of the first bed by virtue of the right of Devolution, carrying the Fiefs of the Survivor from the Son of the second; it often happens that a Brother is possessed of an Estate which holds of his Sister: But after all, what can you reply to your Histories which tell us that Isabel of Austria, Daughter by the first bed to Philip the second, enjoyed all the Estates of the Low Countries, excluding Philip the third, her half Brother, Son by a second Marriage to the same Kiag Philip the second? Flem. You cannot find any other Precedent besides this, to justify that ever any Daughter by the first bed excluded a Son by the second in the possession of this Duchy. French. Neither can you find any one that proves that ever any Son by the second bed was preferred before a Daughter by the first; for never since this was a Duchy, was there ever but only that one time such a concurrence of a Daughter by the first bed, with a Son by the second, where you see the Daughter was preferred. Flem. The Duchess Isabel was not preferred by right of Devolution, but she received those Estates from King Philip her Father, who freely gave them to her in favour of her Marriage. French. Consult your Annals, and they will tell you that 'tis true, Philip the second to give himself the honour of an imaginary bounty, gave to Isabel all those Estates which belonged to her by the right of Devolution; You will see also in your Records that all the Orders of the Duchy protested, that this Donation should not, prejudice their Rights, Customs, and Privileges; and that notwithstanding this contract, they should look upon Isabel as their natural and lawful Sovereign a Scripto Ordinibus caveat duodecimum cessionis articulum Belgicarum provinclarum libertati & privilegiis nihil derogatum aut dettimento fore. Ordines Brabantiae per suum Grapharium sententiam protulerunt, quae palam pronunclavit Ordines ita censuisse, se Alberto Archiduci serenissimae Insantis nomine, tanquam Principis legitimae harum provinci●rum jusjurandum praestituros, si vicissim els jusjurandum praestetur de observandis patriae privilegiis, & de lis sarciendis quae contra majorum instituta & auspicia innovata aut abrogata sunt. . And if your curiosity leads you any further, you may entirely satisfy it in the History of the Low Countries, written by Grotius; where we read that Philip II. was willing to give these Provinces to Isabel, not only for the reduction of the Rebels to their duty; but also by this division to assure them to her against those troubles, which her half brother might some time or other have given her, notwithstanding that she was the lawful inheretrix to them b Dotem Philippus Burgundiam cum Belgica dixerat, ut legitimae haeredi adversus fratrem minorem divisioneconsuleretur. lib. 6. An. 1597. . Which made such an impression upon all the hearts and spirits of the Country, that it was at that time that Christineus, Kinscot, Buken, and those other famous Doctors of the Country enlarged themselves upon the business of the Right of Devolution, to make it known to their Princess, that it was this Title of the Law, and not the Kings her Father's Donation which made her Sovereign of Brabant. Germ. This example and these protestations seem to me to be of great strength to support the right of the Daughters by the first bed, against the Sons of the second in Brabant: but it may be, Sir, he will tell you of some precedents to the contrary. French. That will be an hard matter for him to do, for all the Dukes of Brabant that had more Wives than one before Philip the second, are Geoffrey the third, Henry the first, Henry the second, John the first, Anthony of Burgundy and Philip le Bon: Now 'tis certain that after the death of these Dukes, either a Son by the first bed always succeeded in the Duchy, or a Son by the second, where there were no Children by the first, as was John the second; or a Son by the third bed, where there were none by the first and second, as was Charles le Hardi, Son by a third Marriage to Philip le Bon, who left no Children by the two former. Germ. I am extremely satisfied as to the Duchy of Brabant in favour of the Queen, and if her right be as well founded to the other Estates, I think a man must be very obstinate to deny it. French. The rest of her Titles are as easily justified, and made out in very few words, for the Objections and Answers which you now hear are applicable to all the rest of them. Flem. Let us proceed then, if you please. French. The signory of Malines belongs to the Infanta by the same right of Devolution; The 15. Article of the 10. Title of the Custom is precise in it. a Si vir aut mulier quibus liberi supersunt, relictis feudis diem suum obeat, tum ex maritis, is qui in vitâ manet usum fructum habebit in omnia commoda accidentaris, Patronatus feudales, & in arces feudales, nec non semissem in obventiones cettas, proprietas corundem feudorum tamen statim ad liberos devolvitur. And Christineus in the Learned Commentary which he has published upon it, formally avouches, that all the Fiefs of the Survivor, whether acquired or Patrimonial, belong by right of Devolution to the Children by the first bed, from the moment of the Dissolution of the fi●st Marriage. He adds also, that this Custom is in this particular more severe than that of Brabant, in that it gives the Children by the first bed all those Fiefs which fall to the Survivor by inheritance during his second Marriage, to the prejudice and exclusion of the Children he has by it, which is not the Custom in Brabant a Etiam notandum venit quod secundum antiquam Mecklin. Constitutionem, & ferè per universam Brabanti am superstes altero conjugum mortuo usufructuarius redditur suorum bonorum, sive industriâ quaesita sunt, sive haereditate obvenerunt, corum proprietate statim ad liberos per●inente, qui haeredes futuri sunt, devolutâ; qui si ante eum moriantur, proprietas denuo ipsi cum usu fr. consolidatur, & id propter spem rediturae haereditatis, haereditarius ille usufructuarius appellatur; atque hinc est, quod proprietariis non liceat, quamdiu in vita est usufructuarius eam proprietatem vel vendere vel oppignera●e, vel ullo denique colore onerate, uti colligi potest ex generali statuto & consuetudine Brabantiae & particularibus &c. In Consuetud. Mecklin. Tit. 16. Art. 24. Num. 25. As to Antwerp, which is one of the chief Fiefs of Brabant, the Infanta has a claim by 3 Titles. The first is that by the Custom which introduces the Devolution. The second is the Union of that Marquisate, with the Duchy of Brabant, made by Philip le Hardi Duke of Burgundy, and some time since renewed by a Solemn Act of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, where he declares it to be inseparable from Brabant b In perpe●●●● Antuerpia & quicquid ad eam pe●ti ne'er often di poterit, civitatibus communique Brabantiae provinclae conjuncta man●b●t, etc. En. 1549. Dans la reception de philip If. pour prince de Brabant cap. 40. And the third is an usage which has inviolably establish, That all the Fiefs holding of Brabant in what part soever situated, either within or without the. Duchy, be regalated as to their succession by the s●u●al Custom of the Duchy. Upper Guelderland does by an express Article admit of the right of Devolution, and after the example of Malines, prefers the Children by the first bed, before those of the second, even in such Fiefs as were not fallen till after the second Marriage c Quorundam locorum usu, apud Brabantos videlicet superiori Gueldriâ atque alibi ex primo matrimonio suscepti liberi, posterioribus, tam in feudo, quam in allodiis immobilibus praeferuntur. Fredericus Sandé in Gall. Cons. fond. tr. 1. tit. 3. Sect. Num. 3. We see in Sandeus' Commentaries upon this Custom, a solemn Decree of the Imperial Council, which judged it thus on the Baron de Tantaimbourg's side, against the Children by the second bed, who sued for Fiefs which were fallen in their time. The Queen's Title to the County of Namur is so clear, that it will be proof sufficient to give you two Articles of the Custom, which establish it. The 79th. introduceth the Devolution in favour of the Children by the first Bed d Quand deux Conjoints apporicront biens ●eels en marriage, & l'une des dicts Conjoints termine Vie par la mort, delaissant enfans procre●● d'eux, la proprieté des biens succeders & see devoluërs par & inconrinent apres ledit trespass advenu ausdirs enfans, sauf au furvivant son usufruit en iceux. and the 82 orders, That the same Children shall succeed in all Immovables that are enjoyed in time of Marriage, whether descending, or acquired during its continuance, excluding the Children by other subsequent Marriages b Les enfans dupremier lit succederont aux biens immcubles apport z●en marriage E'cheus ou acquis pendent iceluy Marriage par Pere & Mere a l'exclusion de enfans d'●utres Marriage subsequens, & semblablement les enfans du second lit, succederont és biens escheus, acquis ou appr●éz comme dessus, audit seconde Marriage l'exclusion des premiers. . I suppose there is not any one but will easily draw the Consequences from these two Articles, and judge that the County of Namurs, having formerly belonged to the late Catholic King during his first Marriage, is now by an entire Right fallen to the Infanta who is issued from that Marriage. Come we to the Duchy of Limbourg, which is joined to that of Brabant by so ancient and strait an Union, that in the opinion of all the Country they make but only one Sovereignty, and have only one Seal, and one and the same Chancellor, notwithstanding the other Estates have each their particular ones; and in truth the Emperor Charles the Fifth, and the Prince Philip his Son, in imitation of their Predecessors, solemnly protested in the year 1549. that the Duchy of Limbourg, and the places beyond the , should for ever remain inseparably united to the Duchy of Brabant c Provinciae nostrae Limburgensis & Transmosanae in perpetuum conjunctae manebunt cum P●ovinc●â nostrâ Brabantiâ, neque unqu●m ●b ea divelli poterunt, etc. En l 2 Act de reception de philip's II. Chapitre 12. . For this cause the Title and the Pretention of the Queen upon that Duchy, doth necessarily draw in that of Limbourg, which cannot be separated from it. As to Haynault, most assuredly it is a Sovereignty independent, or in , which according to the voice of the People, and all the Records of that Estate, acknowledges no Supreme Lord but only God and the Sun d Comes Annoniae vulgo ●icitur ●nere suam ditionem à Deo & Sole, id est, à nemine Mortaliam, Cap. 3. Nu. 9 Fol. 12. lib. de feud. And 'tis upon this account that the Queen found'st her Title to this County; for by an express Article of the Custom 'tis said, that Patrimonial Free-holds shall belong to the Children of the first Marriage, and not to those of a subsequent one. a Les alleux patrimoniaux appartiendront aux enfans du premier marriage, si'z ou filles, & non aux enfans du marriage subs quent, mais s'ils esch●o●ent col●acerallement durant un seconde ou troifi●sme Marriage, ils appar●iendront aux ensans desdits marisges respectivement, le mes● e●● ' observera a l'esgard des alleux aquis, les quels ●ppatiendront aussiaux filz & filles de Chacun Mariage ou vidui●é d'iceluy auqu●l ●s ●its acquests seront saits, ou a leur generation, Art. 4. Chap. 105. . If nevertheless Spain should contend against the credit of all History, as well as against the certainty of proofs, that it i● a Fief, and not a Sovereignty independent, or in Freehold, the Queens Right would not be lessened or weakened by it; because every Fief that is acquired, doth by the disposition of the same Custom belong to the Children issuing from that Marriage in which it is acquired, though they be Daughters to the exclusion of those Children which issue from other Marriages, though Sons b Tous Fiefs acquis par pere ou mere, constant chacun Marriage ou V●du●ré d'iceluy appartiendront & escheront aux enfans du Mariage ou Vidui●é en tel ordre que cy devant a esté dit. Art. 3. Chap. 91. Quant aux fiefs escheus en line collateral, ou acquis en premier Marriage, encores que filles dudit premier Mariage le pere n'en pourra fair l' Allienation de tant d'enfans, que fils, que filles duront succeder es fiefs acquis ou escheus collater allement constant chacun Marriage. Act. 9 Chapitre 92. But granting that the late Catholic King came by that County in the time of his first Marriage, as being Heir to the Infanta Isabel his Aunt, or as a Doneé from Philip the II. his Grandfather, who had given it to Isabel upon her Marriage, on condition that if she died without Issue, it should return to the King of Spain then living. It is certain that both in one and the other case, it was truly an Acquest made by his own person: For presupposing it came to him as being Heir to his Aunt, the Custom declares all collateral Successions to be Acquests c Art. 7. Chap. 92. . And if it be his as Doneé of Philip his Grandfather, the same Custom says that all Donations in directo are Acquests, unless they are made to the Child as to the rightful & next heir, & that neither the Father nor Mother were in their life time possessed of them d Art. 1, & 2. Ch. 93. which cannot be said of the late Catholic King, who was so far from being possessed by that Donatary, or from being considered as the rightful and next Heir, that he was not born in a long time after, since Philip the Third his Father was not so much as married at the time of this Donation, and consequently you see that every way the County of Haynault belongs to the Queen. That of Artois cannot be disputed with her without manifest injustice against the rule of the Custom of the place; which imports that if the Survivor marry again, the Children by the first Marriage shall carry all the inheritances which were possessed by Parents, during that first Marriage, the Exclusion of those by the second a Quesile Survivant des deux Conjoynts ayant enfans de son Marriage ait convolé en d'autres Nopces, dont seroient issus, d'autres enfans, iceux enfans d'icedluy dernier marriage ne peuvent demander aucun droit par le trespass dudit survivant des heritage's doubt il a post é durant son premier Marriage. . But of all other Customs, that of Combray is favourable to the Infanta, which formally orders that the Children by the first bed are so fully seized of the property of all fiefs, from the instant of the Dissolution of Marriage, that the Survivor cannot do any act of a proprietor without the free and express consent of all the Children together b Homme ou femme ayant enfant, ou enfansvivans du premier marriage brisé & sepa●é ne peut valablement vendre, changer, donner, ni autrement aliener says heritage's tant fiefs que main fermes, ni autrement disposer, si non du libre consentement, competence & Devoir de Loix actuelles & personelles de tous lesdicts enfants, etc. . As to the County of Burgundy, the males and females sharing equally without any distinction of the nature of the Estate, or of the Order of the Marriages; the three Children left of both Beds by his Catholic Majesty, aught to divide it equally, every one taking their third part. And for the Duchy of Luxemburg, the Son by the second bed is to have an entire Moiety, and the Queen with her half Sister the other half, that is, either of them a fourth part of the whole, because the Custom gives the Son a portion double to that of the Daughter c Quand des filles ont freres ou soeurs, chacune fille n'a que la moitlé autant quel'un des freres. Art. 9 This, Sir, is an Abridgement as far as I can remember of the Treatise, which was shown to me upon the rights of the Queen: If any thing has escaped me, or the proof be not strong enough, you are not (if you please) to blame any thing but by memory or weakness. Flem. We are so far from believing that you have forgotten any thing, that by the manner of your discourse I should rather think you to be the Author of that Treatise; for 'tis a very hard thing for any one to be so full and knowing in another man's work. Germ. I would to Heaven all the City had heard as much as we have now done upon this subject, which is of such importance to its peace, honour, and fidelity. Flem. I could wish it with all my heart, for to speak truly, I find myself extremely disabused, and am troubled that others are not so too. French. I hope that will be so shortly, by the Treatise which the most Christian King ordered to be composed, only out of an intent to instruct and draw them out of their Error. Flem. In what language is it written? French. The Original is in French, but the most Christian King has ordered it to be translated into Latin, for the farther spreading of it; and I can assure you the translation is excellent. Flem. I much fear that this work will not pass so far as us; but I am resolved not to leave you till you have promised me one favour. French. If it lies in my power, you may be assured of it. What is it? Flem. 'Tis Sir, that you will order this Conversation of ours to be printed with all the Texts of the Customs, and Authorities in the Margin. You ought to do this for truth's sake, and if I durst whisper it in your Ear, you ought to do it for our August Princesses sake. French. How am I ravished with this your Declaration! 'tis true, I own much to that sacred name, and I promise you, that from this very evening I will so order my affairs as to give you satisfaction. Germ. So sweet and worthy a Conversation cannot have a more pleasing End. We hope, Sir, in a little time to see the effects of your promise, and at parting we conjure you to advance the work with a diligence suitable to the merits of the subject, and the warmth of our zeal. FINIS.