Arbuthnot, some years later, ridiculed the Partition Treaty with exquisite humour and ingenuity.Everybody must remember his description of the paroxy** of rage into which poor old Lord Strutt fell, on hearing that his runaway servant Nick Frog, his clothier John Bull, and his old enemy Lewis Baboon, had come with quadrants, poles, and inkhorns, to survey his estate, and to draw his will for him.Lord Mahon speaks of the arrangement with grave severity.He calls it "an iniquitous compact, concluded without the slightest reference to the welfare of the states so readily parcelled and allotted; insulting to the pride of Spain, and tending to strip that country of its hard-won conquests." The most serious part of this charge would apply to half the treaties which have been concluded in Europe quite as strongly as to the Partition Treaty.What regard was shown in the Treaty of the Pyrenees to the welfare of the people of Dunkirk and Roussillon, in the Treaty of Nimeguen to the welfare of the people of Franche Comte, in the Treaty of Utrecht to the welfare of the people of Flanders, in the treaty of 1735 to the welfare of the people of Tuscany? All Europe remembers, and our latest posterity will, we fear, have reason to remember how coolly, at the last great pacification of Christendom, the people of Poland, of Norway, of Belgium, and of Lombardy, were allotted to masters whom they abhorred.The statesmen who negotiated the Partition Treaty were not so far beyond their age and ours in wisdom and virtue as to trouble themselves much about the happiness of the people whom they were apportioning among foreign rulers.But it will be difficult to prove that the stipulations which Lord Mahon condemns were in any respect unfavourable to the happiness of those who were to be transferred to new sovereigns.The Neapolitans would certainly have lost nothing by being given to the Dauphin, or to the Great Turk.Addison, who visited Naples about the time at which the Partition Treaty was signed, has left us a frightful description of the misgovernment under which that part of the Spanish Empire groaned.As to the people of Lorraine, an union with France would have been the happiest event which could have befallen them.Lewis was already their sovereign for all purposes of cruelty and exaction.He had kept their country during many years in his own hands.At the peace of Ryswick, indeed, their Duke had been allowed to return.But the conditions which had been imposed on him made him a mere vassal of France.
We cannot admit that the Treaty of Partition was objectionable because it "tended to strip Spain of hard-won conquests." The inheritance was so vast, and the claimants so mighty, that without some dismemberment it was scarcely possible to make a peaceable arrangement.If any dismemberment was to take place, the best way of effecting it surely was to separate from the monarchy those provinces which were at a great distance from Spain, which were not Spanish in manners, in language, or in feelings, which were both worse governed and less valuable than the old kingdoms of Castile and Arragon, and which, having always been governed by foreigners, would not be likely to feel acutely the humiliation of being turned over from one master to another.
That England and Holland had a right to interfere is plain.The question of the Spanish succession was not an internal question, but an European question.And this Lord Mahon admits.He thinks that when the evil had been done, and a French prince was reigning at the Escurial, England and Holland were justified in attempting, not merely to strip Spain of its remote dependencies, but to conquer Spain itself; that they were justified in attempting to put, not merely the passive Flemings and Italians, but the reluctant Castilians and Asturians, under the dominion of a stranger.The danger against which the Partition Treaty was intended to guard was precisely the same danger which afterwards was made the ground of war.It will be difficult to prove that a danger which was sufficient to justify the war was insufficient to justify the provisions of the treaty.If, as Lord Mahon contends, it was better that Spain should be subjugated by main force than that she should be governed by a Bourbon, it was surely better that she should be deprived of Sicily and the Milanese than that she should be governed by a Bourbon.
Whether the treaty was judiciously framed is quite another question.We disapprove of the stipulations.But we disapprove of them, not because we think them bad, but because we think that there was no chance of their being executed.Lewis was the most faithless of politicians.He hated the Dutch.He hated the Government which the Revolution had established in England.He had every disposition to quarrel with his new allies.It was quite certain that he would not observe his engagements, if it should be for his interest to violate them.Even if it should be for his interest to observe them, it might well be doubted whether the strongest and clearest interest would induce a man so haughty and self-willed to co-operate heartily with two governments which had always been the objects of his scorn and aversion.
When intelligence of the second Partition Treaty arrived at Madrid, it roused to momentary energy the languishing ruler of a languishing state.The Spanish ambassador at the Court of London was directed to remonstrate with the Government of William; and his remonstrances were so insolent that he was commanded to leave England.Charles retaliated by dismissing the English and Dutch ambassadors.The French King, though the chief author of the Partition Treaty, succeeded in turning the whole wrath of Charles and of the Spanish people from himself, and in directing it against the two maritime powers.Those powers had now no agent at Madrid.Their perfidious ally was at liberty to carry on his intrigues unchecked; and he fully availed himself of this advantage.
