It was proposed and accepted, that Philip should renounce France, for himself and his posterity; and that the Most Christian King, and all the princes of his blood, should, in the like manner, renounce Spain.
It must be confessed, that this project of renunciation lay under a great disrepute, by the former practices of this very King, Lewis XIV.
pursuant to an absurd notion among many in that kingdom, of a divine right, annexed to proximity of blood, not to be controlled by any human law.
But it is plain, the French themselves had recourse to this method, after all their infractions of it, since the Pyrenean treaty; for the first dauphin, in whom the original claim was vested, renounced, for himself and his eldest son, which opened the way to Philip Duke of Anjou; who would however hardly have succeeded, if it had not been for the will made in his favour by the last King, Charles II.
It is indeed hard to reflect, with any patience, upon the unaccountable stupidity of the princes of Europe for some centuries past, who left a probability to France of succeeding in a few ages to all their dominions; whilst, at the same time, no alliance with that kingdom could be of advantage to any prince, by reason of the salique law.

Should not common prudence have taught every sovereign in Christendom to enact a salique law, with respect to France; for want of which, it is almost a miracle, that the Bourbon family hath not possessed the universal monarchy by right of inheritance?
When the French assert a proximity of blood gives a divine right, as some of their ministers, who ought to be more wise or honest, have lately advanced in this very case, to the title of Spain; do they not, by allowing a French succession, make their own kings usurpers?
Or, if the salique law be divine, is it not of universal obligation, and consequently of force, to exclude France from inheriting by daughters?
Or, lastly, if that law be of human institution, may it not be enacted in any state, with whatever extent or limitation the legislature shall think fit?
For the notion of an unchangeable human law is an absurdity in government, to be believed only by ignorance, and supported by power.

From hence it follows, that the children of the late Queen of France, although she had renounced, were as legally excluded from succeeding to Spain, as if the salique law had been fundamental in that kingdom; since that exclusion was established by every power in Spain, which could possibly give a sanction to any law there; and therefore the Duke of Anjou's title is wholly founded upon the bequest of his predecessor (which hath great authority in that monarchy, as it formerly had in ours), upon the confirmation of the Cortes, and the general consent of the people.
It is certain, the faith of princes is so frequently subservient to their ambition, that renunciations have little validity, otherwise than from the powers and parties whose interest it is to support them.

But this renunciation, which the Queen hath exacted from the French King and his grandson, I take to be armed with all the essential circumstances that can fortify such an act.

For as it is necessary, for the security of every prince in Europe, that those two great kingdoms should never be united; so the chief among them will readily consent to be guarantees for preventing such a misfortune.
Besides, this proposal (according to Her Majesty's expression in her speech) is of such a nature, that it executes itself; because the Spaniards, who dread such an union, for every reason that can have weight among men, took care that their king should not only renounce, in the most solemn manner; but likewise, that the act should be framed in the strongest terms themselves could invent, or we could furnish them with.