DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47347#0106
90
HISTORICAL ESSAY ON
It is well known that Ferdinand VII. subsequently signed,
on "be 2lst of September, 1832, an act revoking its publi-
cation, but it is also known what coercive means were em-
ployed to obtain his signature when on his death-bed, when
he was expected every moment to expire, and when his
benumbed hand was scarcely able to write his name1.
What stronger proof could be required of the validity of
the law of 1789, than the extreme importance attached by
the adversaries of Isabella to the revocation of its publica-
tion ? It was such that they ventured to proceed to acts of
coercion upon the person of the dying king. But Heaven
did not permit them to reap the fruit of their perfidy.
The king got better; he returned in October 1832
from St. Ildefonso to Madrid, and found himself suffi-
in contesting either the integrity of the act of 1789 or its validity after a
silence of forty-one years. These four great personages were, first, Don Carlos,
the person directly interested, he whom this act deprived immediately of the
crown; there was Don Francisco, his brother; there was next, in default of
brothers of Ferdinand VII., the king of Naples, called to inherit in case of the
extinction of the males of the elder branch; lastly, there was king Charles X.,
who had but an indirect interest in the matter, but still an interest which the
last speaker considers as very powerful.
“ Well, gentlemen, what do you think these princes did, to whose rights, to
whose interests, the act of 1789 gave so rude a shock ?
“ Don Carlos was at Madrid; he neither remonstrated nor protested : he
acquiesced by his silence.
“Don Francisco was at Madrid; he neither remonstrated nor protested: he
acquiesced by his silence.
“ The king of Naples was, by great accident, at Madrid, having come thither
to attend the accouchement of his daughter : he neither remonstrated nor pro-
tested.
“ Lastly, Charles X. was at Paris : he neither remonstrated nor protested.
Nay, more, his ambassador at Madrid, having taken some useless steps to pre-
vent the blow which threatened the ordinance of Philip V., was reproved, and
received orders to suspend them.”—Speech of the duke de Broglie, p. 9 and 10.
—Note by the French Translator.
1 The signature in the original is almost entirely illegible.
HISTORICAL ESSAY ON
It is well known that Ferdinand VII. subsequently signed,
on "be 2lst of September, 1832, an act revoking its publi-
cation, but it is also known what coercive means were em-
ployed to obtain his signature when on his death-bed, when
he was expected every moment to expire, and when his
benumbed hand was scarcely able to write his name1.
What stronger proof could be required of the validity of
the law of 1789, than the extreme importance attached by
the adversaries of Isabella to the revocation of its publica-
tion ? It was such that they ventured to proceed to acts of
coercion upon the person of the dying king. But Heaven
did not permit them to reap the fruit of their perfidy.
The king got better; he returned in October 1832
from St. Ildefonso to Madrid, and found himself suffi-
in contesting either the integrity of the act of 1789 or its validity after a
silence of forty-one years. These four great personages were, first, Don Carlos,
the person directly interested, he whom this act deprived immediately of the
crown; there was Don Francisco, his brother; there was next, in default of
brothers of Ferdinand VII., the king of Naples, called to inherit in case of the
extinction of the males of the elder branch; lastly, there was king Charles X.,
who had but an indirect interest in the matter, but still an interest which the
last speaker considers as very powerful.
“ Well, gentlemen, what do you think these princes did, to whose rights, to
whose interests, the act of 1789 gave so rude a shock ?
“ Don Carlos was at Madrid; he neither remonstrated nor protested : he
acquiesced by his silence.
“Don Francisco was at Madrid; he neither remonstrated nor protested: he
acquiesced by his silence.
“ The king of Naples was, by great accident, at Madrid, having come thither
to attend the accouchement of his daughter : he neither remonstrated nor pro-
tested.
“ Lastly, Charles X. was at Paris : he neither remonstrated nor protested.
Nay, more, his ambassador at Madrid, having taken some useless steps to pre-
vent the blow which threatened the ordinance of Philip V., was reproved, and
received orders to suspend them.”—Speech of the duke de Broglie, p. 9 and 10.
—Note by the French Translator.
1 The signature in the original is almost entirely illegible.