Note 266 — IV. NOVEMBER, 1744—JANUARY, 1747. Foreign Politics—D'Argenson's Ministry—1745: The Convention of Augsburg—The Convention of Hanover—The Imperial Election—The Treaty of Dresden—1746: The Negotiation of Turin—The Saxon Marriage—Review.
Reading edition
M. de Broglie speaks of d'Argenson as having been "among the severest censors of Fleury, whom he reproached bitterly for having compromised the fair name of France by repudiating his engagements as to the Austrian succession" ("Marie Thérèse," I. p. 207).
The passages (Journal, Rathery, III. pp. 296, 299, 328) upon which this statement is possibly based cannot mean, as the historian would seem to imply, that d'Argenson was in favour of those engagements and opposed to their repudiation. He is merely exclaiming against Fleury because, by his iniquitous acceptance of those engagements, he had been driven to the further iniquity of violating them. D'Argenson, like everybody else, had thought the Pragmatic Sanction preposterous, and no one was more astounded than he at the calm which followed the death of Charles VI. Here is one passage which is chosen from a score:
"Quelle conduite! Tout ne demanderait qu'à aller, animer et fortifier le plus faible, rompre la glace, diviser le grand morceau des États Autrichiens; voilà à quoi nous n'arriverons point, et quelle occasion perdue!" (Journal, Rathery, III. p. 230).
When at last the ice was broken by Frederick, and there is talk of an offensive alliance between France and Prussia, it is true that d'Argenson recoils; but he is careful to make the reason clear: for he dreads the effect of a war of ambition on the prosperity of the French provinces (Ibid., III. pp. 305, 310). Yet no sooner does the war resume the aspect of a triumphal march than all his old enthusiasm for the dismemberment of the Hapsburg dominion revives (Ibid., III. pp. 342, 344, 409, &c.).
For the whole episode see passages indicated in Appendix C.
D'Argenson's real quarrel with Fleury was (1) that he had subscribed to the Pragmatic Sanction at all; (2) not that he had repudiated it, but that he had neglected to provide himself with a decent excuse for doing so (Ibid., III. pp. 296, 328, &c.).