Third?

The ministers were, one and all, against the recognition. Indeed,
it seems difficult to understand how any person who had any
pretensions to the name of statesman should have been of a
different opinion. Torcy took his stand on the ground that to
recognise the Prince of Wales would be to violate the Treaty of
Ryswick. This was indeed an impregnable position. By that treaty
His Most Christian Majesty had bound himself to do nothing which
could, directly or indirectly, disturb the existing order of
things in England. And in what way, except by an actual invasion,
could he do more to disturb the existing order of things in
England than by solemnly declaring, in the face of the whole
world, that he did not consider that order of things as
legitimate, that he regarded the Bill of Rights and the Act of
Settlement as nullities, and the King in possession as an
usurper? The recognition would then be a breach of faith; and,
even if all considerations of morality were set aside, it was
plain that it would, at that moment, be wise in the French
government to avoid every thing which could with plausibility be
represented as a breach of faith. The crisis was a very peculiar
one. The great diplomatic victory won by France in the preceding
year had excited the fear and hatred of her neighbours.
Nevertheless there was, as yet, no great coalition against her.
The House of Austria, indeed, had appealed to arms. But with the
House of Austria alone the House of Bourbon could easily deal.
Other powers were still looking in doubt to England for the
signal; and England, though her aspect was sullen and menacing,
still preserved neutrality. That neutrality would not have lasted
so long, if William could have relied on the support of his