The Second Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle: Conclusion, Ratification, and Handover

The Second Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle ended the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748. The contest extended beyond European territories and dynastic inheritance to North America and India: British forces had taken Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island, while the French had captured Madras. European land warfare and overseas occupations became bargaining assets in the same negotiations.

A desire for peace did not mean that every party was satisfied with the situation. In a letter dated May 31, 1748, Britain's Lady Hervey welcomed the preliminary settlement, judging that another campaign season might place the British army and ministry in grave difficulty. This was a contemporary political assessment, not evidence that the definitive treaty had already been signed or a statement of the outcome of a hypothetical campaign.

References: [2] [4]

On April 30, 1748, representatives of Britain, France, and the United Provinces agreed on preliminary articles, with other belligerents joining subsequently. The definitive treaty was also negotiated at Aachen, called Aix la Chapelle in the English document. Representatives had to present full powers granted by their sovereigns or governments before negotiating and signing in their names.

Britain, France, and the United Provinces signed the definitive text on October 18. British representatives included the Earl of Sandwich and Thomas Robinson; the French included the Comte de Saint-Séverin and La Porte du Theil; and Willem Bentinck was among the Dutch signatories. The British edition published by order in 1749 explicitly identified the date as New Style. Its Old Style equivalent must not be treated as a second signing.

Representing Maria Theresa, Kaunitz signed an instrument of accession on October 23, undertaking to observe the treaty and two separate articles. This instrument separately required ratifications to be exchanged within three weeks. Accession followed the initial signatures in stages, so it is inaccurate to say that every belligerent completed all formalities together on October 18.

References: [1]

Restitution of wartime conquests was a central principle, but the European map was not simply restored unchanged to its prewar form. Article 6 arranged for France to return occupied territory in the Low Countries and the relevant barrier towns. Article 7 assigned Parma, Piacenza, and Guastalla to the Spanish prince Don Philip, subject to conditions of succession and reversion. Restoration of Savoy and Nice was linked to these territorial transfers.

Article 21 renewed the guarantee of Maria Theresa's and her descendants' succession to the Habsburg lands under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, while preserving cessions already made or stipulated by the treaty. The following article guaranteed the king of Prussia's existing possession of Silesia and Glatz. Recognition of dynastic rights did not mean the simultaneous recovery of lost territory.

Article 16 also restored the four years interrupted by war under Britain's asiento contract for the slave trade in Spanish America and its annual trading-ship privilege. The restoration of commerce therefore included the continuation of institutions trafficking in enslaved Africans, and cannot be described merely as neutral facilitation of trade.

References: [1]

Article 8 required restitutions and cessions in Europe to be completed within six weeks after the eight parties exchanged ratifications. The relevant generals or commissioners were to meet at Brussels and Nice fifteen days after signature. The departure of troops, the entry of replacement forces, and local inhabitants' supply obligations all required specific arrangements.

Overseas distances made simultaneous transfers difficult. Article 9 therefore required Britain to send two persons of rank to France as hostages after the exchange of ratifications, pending reliable news that Cape Breton Island and other overseas conquests had been returned. The parties also had to provide copies of orders to commissioners responsible for receiving and restoring territories, with commissioners ready to depart carrying their authority and instructions.

Further provisions addressed artillery inventories, taxation, and archives. Article 10 made the exchange of ratifications the dividing point for entitlement to ordinary revenues, while forage and equipment needed by troops were to be supplied until withdrawal. Article 11 required the return of archives and relevant documents. Peace thus involved more than ceasing fire: it required checking property, transferring administrative records, and settling responsibilities incurred during occupation.

References: [1]

Article 24 required formal ratifications to be exchanged at Aix-la-Chapelle within one month of signature. Signing to confirm a text, government ratification, exchange of instruments, and execution of particular clauses were connected but distinct steps. Articles 2, 4, 8, and 10 separately linked restoration of property, release of prisoners, territorial transfers, and revenue entitlements to the exchange of ratifications. October 18 cannot be treated as the date when all these measures had already been implemented.

Comparing contemporary Dutch news reports, media historian Joop Koopmans found conflicting dates even for the exchange of ratifications. Newspapers reported the morning of November 18, while a subsequent news compilation placed it during the night of November 16–17. What can be established here is that the process reached the ratification-exchange stage in mid-November. Without separately checking all deposit records, neither reported date should be presented as a uniform, undisputed date of entry into force for every participant.

References: [1] [3]

Lucas's history of Canada records the French return to Louisbourg in July 1749. Britain founded Halifax at Chebucto Harbour that same year to strengthen its foothold in Nova Scotia. Diplomatic commitments made in 1748 thus became actual transfers of control at important overseas locations only the following year. Restitution also caused resentment among the New England colonists who had supplied money and troops to capture Louisbourg.

Disputes over borders and spheres of influence remained. Lucas describes postwar discussions in Paris between British and French commissioners over North American boundaries that failed to produce agreement. Competition continued in Acadia and the interior. The disparagement of one population found in older imperial histories should not be adopted to explain these conflicts, but the actual transfer of territory can be distinguished from the failure to settle long-running disputes.

The treaty brought dynastic guarantees, territorial concessions, commercial arrangements, and withdrawal procedures into a single compromise. It ended one war while leaving disputes for further negotiation. Understanding its role requires separate examination of what its provisions said and when and how they were actually carried out in different places.

References: [1] [4]