plaufible Colour, this Independency and Sovereignty?

Jobn II. de Chalon, Son of William VIII. Prince of Orange, died April 9. 1502; leaving Iffue (by Philiberte of Luxemburg his Wife, Countess of Charmy) Philibert, and Claudia de Chalon, who was married to Henry Count of Nassau.

Philibert de Chalon, Prince of Orange and Melple, declared for the Emperor Charles V. against the King of France, Francis I. who feiz'd his Estate and his Perfon; fo that he was kept at Bourges till releas'd by the Treaty of Madrid, by which he was entirely neftored. He was afterwards kill'd in the Siege of Florence, in the Year 1530, without having ever marry'd...

We could here prove, if it was neceffary, That all the Estates incorporated into this Illuftrious Houfe of Chalon, did lawfully fall to that Prince, and to John II. his Father, with full Liberty and Property. Philibert left all thefe Eftates, and his others, by a Will dated May 3. 1520, and a Codicil dated April 8. 1521, to René of Naffau, Son of Henry of Naffau and of Claudia de Chalon his Sifter, upon Condition he fhould take and bear the Name and Arms of Chalon; which was done.

It was this fame René de Nassau-Chalon, in whom the Fourth Race of Princes of Orange began; John I. de Chalon having made the third; and Raymond V. and his Daughter Mary being the laft of the Race of Beaux, which was the second.

Now, as to the Pretenfions that were formed in France, upon the Death of Prince Philibert of Orange. His Will was oppofed by the Duke de Longueville, as being defcended from Alice de Chalon, Daughter of John I. and Mary de Beaux; under Colour of a Subftitution in the faid Mary's Will made in 1416.

The Count de la Chambre did the fame, as being defcended from Jane de Chalon, Daughter of Lewis Prince of Orange; alledging alio a Substitution, which he thought there was in Lewis's Will dated in the Year 1466.

Whereupon,the Duke de Longueville, and the Count de la Chambre, publish'd divers Declarations against

the

he Princes of Orange, who were condemn'd without being heard, and without Competent Authority, (lince the Principality was independent from all fuperiour Jurifdiction) whilft France was in Poffeffion of the faid Principality, which fhe feiz'd because the Princes were in the Emperor's Intereft; which is alfo taken Notice of in Hiftory, viz. That the Wars in the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century, occafion'd the Princes to be troubled with a great many Chicanes.

All thefe Declarations became void by the Treaties of Peace of Madrid, Crefpy, Nice, and Cambrefis ; and the two Treaties of Peace of 1544, and 1559, did most exprefly annul the Declaration of the Parliament of Provence, by which the Principality of Orange was confifcated.

Moreover, the Claufes inferted in thofe Treaties were confirm'd by feveral Declarations of the Kings of France, from Francis I. to Henry IV. and by the Declarations of their Councils, who acknowledg'd themfelves incompetent to take Cognizance of the Affair of the Principality. All this is fo evident, that the Proofs taken from the Archives and Publick Acts, would be fuperfluous and needless to maintain a Truth fo well known.

Now, to return to the abovefaid Pretenfions. The Contract of Marriage of John I. and Mary de Beaux, by vertue of which, the Principality of Orange came free to Lewis de Chalon his Son, does entirely invali date the Duke de Longueville's pretended Subftitution.

And the fame may be faid with respect to the Pretenfions of the Count de la Chambre, confidering he is not defcended from Jane de Chalon, who was marry'd to Lewis Count de la Chambre; befides that the Subftitution contain'd in Lewis's Will, in favour of Jane, is become void, because the Male Defcendents of Lewis furvived the Defcendents of Jane,which is agreeable to all the certain Maxims of Law.

Thefe far fetch'd Pretensions and Oppofitions a gainst the Will of Philibert de Chalon, remain'd without any Reflexion on the part of France; and by the Treaties of Peace of 1544, and the Private one fub. Lequent to the General, as well as by that of 1559, C

the

of Peace of Chateau-Cambrefis, concluded April 3. 1559. Probably the Author forgot that of Crefpy, made the 18th of September, 1544, between Charles V. Emperor, and Francis I. King of France. There he might have feen, That the Moft Chriftian King took off, by the faid Treaty, all Seizure and Hindrance made and given to the Principality of Orange, and Sovereignty of the fame, for the Benefit of the Univerfal Heir nominated in the Will of René de Chalon, Prince of Orange, immediate Heir to the late Prince Philibert; in which, the Difpofitions in Prince Rene's and Prince Philibert's Wills, the free Difpofition of which laft we are proving beyond Contradiction) are maintain'd and entirely confirm'd.

It was, therefore, fifteen Years before, viz. in the Treaty of Crefpy, that Ufe was made of the Will of Prince René of Naffau-Chalon; in pursuance whereof, Prince William of Orange was restored, and reinstated in the real and corporal Poffeffion and Enjoyment of the Principality of Orange, and of all that belong'd to him, and was declared to belong to him, as Univerfal Heir appointed by Prince René.

Hence 'tis eafy to judge what Strefs ought to be laid upon the Infinuation of the Author of the faid Memorial, as if William I. Prince of Orange, as Se'cond Plenipotentiary of Philip II. King of Spain, had inferted in the abovemention'd Treaty, an Article in his own Favour, without citing of Parties, by his own Intereft. Surely, this Argument is of little Force, and is a cruel Arraignment of the Juftice and unblamable Conduct of Crown'd Heads; fince it cannot be prefumed, That a Plenipotentiary's Intereft I would have gone fo far, as to infert in a Treaty of Peace, Articles which had not previoufly been examin'd, and receiv'd the neceffary Juftification; as if in the moft folemn Treaties, fupported by the Authority of Kings, Men would blindly have fubfcribed, without the leaft Regard to Truth, to the good Pleasure or Convenience of a Plenipotentiary, or to the Humour of the Pacifick Crowns and Potentates.

But fuppofing, for once, that his Credit had fo great an Afcendant over the Mind of the King of Spain; what Authority did it carry elsewhere? Does

it thence follow, that the French King's Ambaffadors muft acquiefce and be content therewith? This had. been a great Piece of Complaifance; and it would affuredly reproach the Conduct of thofe Minifters, and even of the King himself, to believe, they had fo little Experience, or fuch strong Prejudices, as to aban don, with that Indifference, the Interefts of the Sub-. ject in a Treaty of Peace; or rather, it would be to charge Kings with making Prefents of other Mens Eftates, without any Regard to Truth or Confcience; which can by no means be prefumed: It were to tax the Pacifick Crowns and Potentates, with Ignorance or Injustice.

It is a thing unheard of, That during the Negotiations for a Peace, the Pretending Parties fhould be. referr'd to the Conclufion of the Treaty, when the Question regards fome Article which is defign'd to be' inferted in favour of another. This is not cuftomary in Publick Treaties: Thofe who have Rights to maintain, and Demands to make in the Peace, produce and prefent them to the Ambaffadors. It is every Man's Bufinefs to be vigilant, and take care of his own Interefts; and Citations, and fuch-like Formalities, ought to be made ufe of, only before Tribunals who have the Power of Deciding thefe Differences, fo far as they fall under their Cognizance.

Prince William of Orange was fufficiently autho rized and qualify'd by the preceding Treaty of Peace, which confirm'd his juft Titles, to be reftored and reinftated, of full Right, in the Poffeffion of his Principality of Orange; which was pofitively repeated in the Articles of the Treaty of Chateau-Cambrefis.

The Demand made to the King of France, that the Suits commenced in different Courts might be brought before his Majefty's Perfon, could relate only to the Estates dependent on the Houfe of Chalon, which were wrongfully contefted in different Courts, by a Multiplicity of Actions, on purpose to embarrafs and delay the Accomplishment of what was pro, mis'd and declared in the faid Treaties of Peace, in favour of Prince William of Orange. The Proof of this is manifeft, according to the most exprefs Senfe

of the faid Articles, which diftinguifh the Reftitution of the Principality of Orange, from the Demand of the depending Eftates; and moreover, this Diftinction is very clear, from the very Demand of Prince William to be reinftated, in the first place, in his Poffeffion of Orange, according to the faid Treaties; fo that the Letters-Patents granted by the King of France, concern'd only the Difputes about the depending Eftates; and the Word to judge, which has no manner of Relation to Sovereignties, being inferted in the faid Letters, does fufficiently juftify this Truth.

Farther, the Declarations of the Parliament and Kings of France prove the Independency and Incompetency of judging herein; of which Prince William I. of Orange was not ignorant. And thus it plainly appears, That his Demand related only to the Eftates dependent on the Houfe of Chalon, the Right whereto he pleaded; and for the fame Reafon, he required to be first restored to his faid Principality, taking off and voiding all Seizures and Impediments, pursuant to the faid Treaties of Crefpy and Chateau-Cambrefis.

Whence we have an eafy Solution of the Inference they pretend molt wrongfully to draw from the Provifion in the Treaty of Ryfwick, That the Kings of of France and England fhould name Commiffaries on both fides. This concerns only the Differences and Questions about certain depending Eftates, and the Terminating and Regulating of all the Difficulties which remain'd concerning the Innovations, Damages, and Troubles, occafion'd by France on Account of the Wars; and the Performance of what was promised on the part of France by the Treaty of Nimeguen, and fome preceding Treaties, and not till then perform'd; and alfo fome other Pretenfions of the King of England, in regard to the faid depending Eftates; among others, the Reftitution of the SaltPits.

One need only read over the Articles of the faid Treaties of Nimeguen and Ryfwick, to be convinced of the Error of fuch an Inference; the rather, because by the faid Treaties, fubfequent to former ones, it appears, that with refpect to the Principality and Sovereignty of Orange, its Reftitution was always

made