DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47347#0131
APPENDIX.
115
administered by Count Campomanes, and the Cortes were
solemnly opened by the king on the 19th of the same month.
As the powers of the deputies to the Cortes were general,
they could deliberate with the king legally and constitution-
ally on every thing that he should submit to them. It
would, therefore, have been as superfluous for the Cortes to
apply for new powers, as it is certain that this application
was never made.
XVI. The author is mistaken in advancing (p. 10) that,
in 1789, no petition was addressed to the king by the Cortes,
and that the king took no resolution respecting the succes-
sion to the throne.
It is true that the author does not give this assertion as his
own, but merely as that of a political party. Still he ought
to have made it his duty to explain himself clearly on this
point, after thoroughly examining it; for on this fact de-
pends the validity or non-validity of the law. In the ex-
tracts from the original protocol of the Cortes of 1789, pub-
lished in 1833 by the government of Ferdinand VII., are
given literal copies of the petition of the Cortes and the
royal resolution; the former in the sitting of the 23d of
September, the latter in that of the 20th of October, six days
before king Charles IV. closed the session of the Cortes.
It is from this official document, the authenticity of which
none can deny, without charging the government of Fer-
dinand VII. with a base and criminal forgery, that we have
extracted the petition of the Cortes and the sanction of the
king, as given in our Essay.
XVII. The author is again mistaken in advancing (p. 20),
in order to invalidate the protocols of the Cortes of 1789,
that Cevallos, the minister, found and bought them at an
old book-shop \
1 “ Charles IV. did not think fit to promulgate the act of the Cortes imme-
diately. He kept it secret,—secret in that sense, that he did not give it official
I 2
115
administered by Count Campomanes, and the Cortes were
solemnly opened by the king on the 19th of the same month.
As the powers of the deputies to the Cortes were general,
they could deliberate with the king legally and constitution-
ally on every thing that he should submit to them. It
would, therefore, have been as superfluous for the Cortes to
apply for new powers, as it is certain that this application
was never made.
XVI. The author is mistaken in advancing (p. 10) that,
in 1789, no petition was addressed to the king by the Cortes,
and that the king took no resolution respecting the succes-
sion to the throne.
It is true that the author does not give this assertion as his
own, but merely as that of a political party. Still he ought
to have made it his duty to explain himself clearly on this
point, after thoroughly examining it; for on this fact de-
pends the validity or non-validity of the law. In the ex-
tracts from the original protocol of the Cortes of 1789, pub-
lished in 1833 by the government of Ferdinand VII., are
given literal copies of the petition of the Cortes and the
royal resolution; the former in the sitting of the 23d of
September, the latter in that of the 20th of October, six days
before king Charles IV. closed the session of the Cortes.
It is from this official document, the authenticity of which
none can deny, without charging the government of Fer-
dinand VII. with a base and criminal forgery, that we have
extracted the petition of the Cortes and the sanction of the
king, as given in our Essay.
XVII. The author is again mistaken in advancing (p. 20),
in order to invalidate the protocols of the Cortes of 1789,
that Cevallos, the minister, found and bought them at an
old book-shop \
1 “ Charles IV. did not think fit to promulgate the act of the Cortes imme-
diately. He kept it secret,—secret in that sense, that he did not give it official
I 2