CHAPTER IX

THE CORDIAL UNDERSTANDING

Lord Aberdeen, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Sir Robert Peel's

Cabinet, had held the same office in the government of the Duke of

Wellington. He had had to deal, as will be remembered, with the

question of the recognition of Louis Philippe and with the attitude

which England was to observe towards the revolution in Belgium. His

first experience of diplomacy had been gained in the days of the great

war. In 1813, as quite a young man, he had been sent upon a special

mission to Vienna, and had been concerned in the negotiations which

had resulted in the entry of Austria into the coalition. During the

campaign in Germany he had accompanied the headquarters of the allied

armies and had been profoundly impressed by the scenes of which he had

been a witness. Whether justified or not, the belief prevailed widely

that, should complications arise, the spectacle of Leipsic after

"the battle of the nations" would be ever present before the eyes of

England's Foreign Secretary.[713]

With regard to the more important questions which the Foreign Office

had in hand, or with which it had recently been called upon to deal,

Aberdeen was in substantial agreement with Palmerston. He approved

of his policy in the Egyptian affair and endorsed his views as to

the necessity of encouraging Spain to shake off the influence of

France. But he was at the same time intensely desirous of replacing

Franco-British relations upon their former intimate footing, and of

allaying the irritation which the Treaty of July had aroused. To

attain this end he was prepared to make far greater concessions than

any to which Palmerston would have consented. No one was so convinced

as he of the truth of the saying, ascribed to the Duke of Wellington,

that the peace of Europe would remain unbroken, so long as France

and England were united. It was not in their policies, but in their

personal characters, that lay the real difference between Aberdeen

and Palmerston. Aberdeen was by nature conciliatory. Palmerston was

instinctively combative, and would rarely deny himself the pleasure

of relentlessly exposing the fallacies of an opponent's arguments.

Aberdeen, although in some respects more of a Liberal than his

predecessor, had a scholar's abhorrence, which had been intensified by

his former relations with Metternich and other continental statesmen,

of all movements of a revolutionary character. Palmerston was a man of

coarser fibre, but of wider sympathies, than his grave and studious

successor.

Notwithstanding the earnest desire of both Lord Aberdeen and of

M. Guizot to bring matters to a successful conclusion, the first

important transaction between the new British government and the

French Foreign Office led to no satisfactory result. In 1831, and

again in 1833, France and England had contracted certain engagements

towards each other for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade.

They had agreed that their cruisers should stop and overhaul any

suspected vessel, whether flying the French or the British flag.

Palmerston, however, had not been content with an arrangement, which

limited the right of search to ships purporting to be of French or

English nationality. He, accordingly, in combination with France, made

representations on the subject to the other Powers and succeeded in

inducing them to agree to the principle which the French and English

governments had adopted. The new convention, to which all the chief

European Powers were to be parties, was ready for signature at the

time when it became evident that a change of government in England was

about to take place. Palmerston, who had always been keenly interested

in suppressing the slave trade, was particularly anxious that his

name should be affixed to an international agreement which, he hoped,

would prove the means of abolishing a traffic which he abhorred.

M. Guizot, however, saw fit purposely to delay matters in order to

deprive him of this satisfaction. Nor did he make any secret of his

reasons for acting in this manner. Palmerston's attitude towards him,

he complained to Henry Bulwer, had been unfriendly. In his dispatch

of November 2, 1840,[714] he had shown a total lack of consideration

for the difficulties of his position, and in a recent speech to his

constituents at Tiverton he had made some highly offensive remarks

about the manner in which the French military authorities in Algeria

were carrying on their war with the Arab tribes.[715]

But, once Lord Aberdeen was installed in Downing Street, M. Guizot's

objections to proceeding with the slave trade convention disappeared.

The necessary powers were sent to Sainte-Aulaire, the French

ambassador, and, on December 20, 1841, the treaty, regulating the

right of search, was signed in London. It was soon clear, however,

that M. Guizot had been mistaken in supposing that the Chamber

would agree to ratify the agreement into which he had entered. The

opposition to slavery had never been so pronounced in France as in

England, and the Treaty of July had greatly stimulated the old feeling

of jealousy of British maritime supremacy. By reason of England's

naval preponderance, the duty of stopping suspected vessels must

necessarily devolve chiefly upon her officers. Both in the French

Chambers and in the press it was hotly contended that the new treaty

was but a device, by means of which England purposed to arrogate to

herself the right of policing the sea. So keen was this feeling that

M. Guizot was forced to inform the British government that France

would be unable to ratify. Popular opposition, it was thought, would

diminish with time, and the protocol was accordingly kept open, in the

hope that France might still become a party to the treaty. But this

expectation was not fulfilled, and on November 9, 1842, the definite

withdrawal of France was officially communicated to Lord Aberdeen.

The affair caused no little resentment and disappointment in England.

Three years later, however, M. Guizot was enabled to re-open the

question. By that time the relations of the two countries were upon

a more friendly footing, and the Duc de Broglie and Dr. Lushington,

the commissioners of their respective governments, succeeded, in

consequence, in arriving at an agreement. The new treaty, signed on

May 29, 1845, fulfilled all the essential conditions of previous

conventions, but provided that, in future, the right of search

in African waters should be exercised by a joint Franco-British

squadron.[716]

Spanish affairs, however, were destined to be the question which was

to occupy the chief attention of the two governments. It has been

related how, in the autumn of 1840, Christina had been forced to

quit Spain, and how, in the spring of the following year, the Cortes

had elected Espartero sole Regent of the kingdom. This solution

of the difficulty was by no means acquiesced in as satisfactory

by all parties. The elevation of the popular general to the head

of the government was necessarily regarded as a victory for the

_Progressistas_ and, consequently, as a triumph for English diplomacy.

Indeed, since the abdication of the Queen-Mother, the _Moderados_, as

a parliamentary party, had almost ceased to exist. But their leaders

still continued to correspond with Christina, whose house in the Rue

de Courcelles in Paris soon became the centre of a vast conspiracy

against the new Regent.

Whilst it was thus a matter of common notoriety that the _Moderado_

chiefs, together with General Narvaez and other military rivals of

Espartero, were plotting in Paris[717] to overthrow the new order of

affairs in Spain, the question of the young Queen's marriage suddenly

sprang into prominence. Isabella was not yet twelve years of age,

but already the selection of her husband was the subject of grave

deliberations in Paris and in London. Christina had always considered

it to be vitally important that her daughter should marry a member of

one of the great reigning families. As far back as the year 1838, at

a most critical period of the civil war, when it was evident that no

assistance was to be expected from Louis Philippe, she had suggested

to the British minister that Isabella might be affianced to an English

prince. If the difficulties arising from the difference of religion

should prove insurmountable, she would be satisfied with the betrothal

of her daughter to a member of the House of Coburg, "on account

of the excellent education which the princes of that family had

received, and on account of their near connection with Her Britannic

Majesty."[718] Villiers was without instructions upon the point,

but he took upon himself to declare unhesitatingly that the English

match could never be effected. Christina, thereupon, announced her

intention of marrying her daughter to a son of the Archduke Charles of

Austria. It was a combination which, "she was now convinced, afforded

the best means of pacifying the country." The negotiations at Vienna,

she informed him, would be entrusted to M. de Cea Bermúdez and their

success would largely depend upon the amount of support given them by

the British government.[719]

Palmerston, upon receiving Villiers' despatch, immediately conveyed

to him "Her Majesty's gracious approbation of the course which he had

pursued."[720] At the same time, he informed him that the British

government could not possibly take part in M. de Cea's negotiations

at Vienna, "without in the first instance communicating thereupon

with the government of France and, as the King of the French would

be extremely averse to such a marriage, it was not probable that

such a communication would contribute much to the accomplishment of

the object." Nor was there any likelihood, he predicted, that the

Austrian Cabinet would entertain the offer. This view of the case

was soon borne out by the event. Metternich at once disclaimed any

intention of listening to Christina's proposals, whilst M. Molé, who,

notwithstanding the secrecy which had been observed, was aware of the

reasons of M. de Cea's presence at Vienna, declared to Lord Granville

that "the armed intervention of France would, undoubtedly, be the

consequence of any attempt to place an Austrian prince upon the throne

of Spain."[721]

The triumph of the constitutionalists and the termination of the civil

war necessarily invested Isabella with an importance which she had

not possessed, whilst the issue of the struggle was uncertain. Once

the stability of her throne seemed assured, she appeared to Louis

Philippe in the light of a most eligible daughter-in-law. In the

month of November, 1839, Christina's former minister, Count Toreno,

was understood to be engaged in negotiating a marriage between a son

of the King of the French and the young Queen of Spain. The scheme,

reported the British _chargé d'affaires_, had numerous supporters. But

the Queen Regent had informed him privately that "she was hostile to

the match and had other views for her daughter."[722] It is probable

that Christina was perfectly sincere in thus declaring her intentions

to Mr. Southern. Nor is there any reason to suppose that, after

her abdication, her objections to the French marriage diminished.

But, inasmuch as she was residing in Paris and hoped to obtain the

assistance of Louis Philippe to her schemes for overturning Espartero,

she was necessarily compelled to conceal her real sentiments. The

re-establishment of French ascendancy at the Court of Madrid occupied

a foremost place in the policy both of the King and of M. Guizot. So

long, however, as Espartero and the _Progressistas_ were in power

there was little prospect that they would be enabled to bring their

plans to a successful conclusion. Under the circumstances, therefore,

they were disposed to regard with a friendly eye the proceedings of

the military and _Moderado_ malcontents in Paris. Bulwer strongly

suspected that some kind of a compact existed, whereby Louis Philippe

promised indirectly to assist the conspirators, and Christina, in

return, undertook to employ her parental influence over Isabella

in favour of her marriage with the Prince de Joinville or the Duc

d'Aumale.[723]

The insurrection against Espartero broke out early in October, 1841.

The standard of rebellion was raised by O'Donnell at Pampeluna and by

the generals commanding the garrisons of Vittoria and Saragossa. But

their plans, which had been so carefully matured in Paris, miscarried,

and the loyal troops experienced little difficulty in dispersing their

followers and in restoring tranquillity. Madrid, in the meanwhile,

had been the scene of one of the most dramatic episodes in recent

history. On the night of October 7, Generals Concha and Diego Leon,

at the head of a band of military conspirators, penetrated into the

palace with the object of carrying off the young Queen. But when they

attempted to ascend the grand staircase they encountered a determined

party of halberdiers. A furious struggle then ensued. The crash of

musketry reverberated through the palace, and bullets struck the

walls of the room in which the terrified Isabella had sought refuge

with her attendants. But help was soon forthcoming. The resistance of

the halberdiers had enabled the national militia, which was animated

by strong Liberal and _Progressista_ sentiments, to assemble. At

the appearance of the citizen soldiers the conspirators either fled

or laid down their arms. Some of their leaders escaped to France,

but Leon was captured and, a few days later, paid the penalty of

his treason, his youth, his good looks and his former distinguished

services earning for him a sympathy which the circumstances of his

case in no way justified.

"With respect to the share of the French government in organizing

and promoting this enterprise," wrote Lord Aberdeen, "I do not think

it necessary to enter into an enquiry at present. We have received

the most positive assurances that they have been entirely strangers

to the undertaking. Whatever may be the value of these assurances,

the attempt having happily failed, there appears to be no advantage

in testifying suspicion and distrust."[724] He, accordingly,

directed Bulwer to do all in his power to persuade Olozaga, the

Spanish minister, to adopt as moderate a tone as possible in his

communications with M. Guizot. The Spanish government was naturally

deeply incensed at the encouragement which the conspirators had

received in Paris, and their representations on the subject included

a demand for the expulsion of Christina from France. This was

peremptorily refused and the relations of the two countries began to

assume a very disquieting appearance. In Bulwer's opinion, were Louis

Philippe to receive any encouragement from Austria or Prussia, he

might not improbably embark upon a war with Spain. "Should hostilities

break out," he warned Lord Aberdeen, "Barcelona would be the French

objective, on account of the effect which its capture would have on

those Courts which are fearful of the democratic opinions prevailing

there."[725]

Aberdeen's instructions to Mr. Aston, the British minister at Madrid,

were of the same nature as those transmitted to Bulwer in Paris. He

was to warn the Spanish ministers of the folly of provoking a rupture

with France. But, at the same time, he was to assure Espartero that

"the policy of Great Britain would continue to be directed towards the

maintenance of the real independence of Spain and to her protection

from whatever quarter she might be threatened."[726] Meanwhile, the

British government would make every effort to induce the Northern

Courts formally to acknowledge the sovereignty of Isabella.[727]

Whether designedly or not, however, the endeavours of Lord Aberdeen

in this direction were frustrated by France. Owing in a great measure

to his good offices, the Spanish government withdrew its demand for

Christina's expulsion.[728] Louis Philippe, thereupon, directed M.

de Salvandy, who some weeks earlier had been appointed ambassador at

Madrid, to proceed to his post. But this measure, which seemed to

foreshadow the establishment of more harmonious relations between

the two countries, led to a most unfortunate complication. Salvandy,

upon his arrival at Madrid, insisted upon being allowed to place

his credentials in the hands of Isabella herself and absolutely

declined to present them to Espartero, the Regent. Both sides invoked

precedents in support of their attitude and pressed their arguments

with the greatest warmth. Finally, Salvandy withdrew from Madrid

taking with him all the members of his embassy, with the exception of

his second secretary, the Duc de Glücksberg, a son of Louis XVIII.'s

favourite minister, the Duc Décazes.

It is unnecessary to discuss the various questions of diplomatic

etiquette raised in this controversy. Whilst, upon the whole,

inclining to the French point of view, Lord Aberdeen was of opinion

that the dispute could have been amicably adjusted without great

difficulty. The attitude of Mr. Aston, he considered, had not been

altogether satisfactory, and he was disposed to impute blame to him

for not having discovered some basis for a compromise. Not content

with censuring him, he allowed M. Guizot to be furnished with a copy

of the letter in which his disapproval was expressed.[729] When

Salvandy was appointed to the Court of Madrid Bulwer had described

him as "a man of letters, but pompous and ridiculous in manner and

unlikely to acquire an influence over the young Queen of Spain."[730]

But, if it was the secret desire of Louis Philippe to provoke a

quarrel with Espartero, he was perhaps the most suitable person he

could have selected for the purpose. The dispute involving, as it

was supposed to have done, the monarchical principle had effectually

dispelled all hope that the absolute Powers would agree to renew

diplomatic relations with the Court of Madrid--a circumstance which

Louis Philippe, in conversation with the British ambassador, affected

"to deplore most deeply."[731] So far as France was concerned,

however, the Duc de Glücksberg was left at Madrid without official

title, in order merely to carry on the ordinary business between the

two countries.

But in all matters relating to Spanish affairs the question of

Isabella's marriage occupied the foremost place. Louis Philippe now

protested that he had never for a moment entertained the idea of

putting forward one of his sons as a candidate for her hand. But,

after making this assertion, he invariably added that he should object

to her marrying any prince who did not belong to either the Spanish

or Neapolitan branch of the House of Bourbon.[732] Accordingly, in

February, 1842, he sent M. Pageot, who had been for several years

first secretary of the French embassy at Madrid, to London, for the

purpose of obtaining the accession of the British government to the

principle that the husband of the Queen of Spain must be a descendant

of Philip V. After leaving London Pageot was to proceed to Vienna,

where he was to hold the same language to Prince Metternich.

Neither in London nor at Vienna, however, was M. Pageot able to

bring his mission to a successful conclusion. Lord Aberdeen declared

emphatically that England could not recognize the right of France

to dispose of the hand of Isabella. The British government looked

upon the matter "as an exclusively Spanish affair, which ought to be

regulated solely by considerations affecting the happiness of the

Queen and the welfare of her people." At these words M. Pageot, at

once, interposed with the remark that he presumed that he was now at

liberty to inform his government that England would not object to her

marriage with a French prince. But Aberdeen, with equal promptitude,

added an important amendment to his first statement. The marriage of

the Queen of Spain with a son of Louis Philippe would, he asserted,

upset the balance of power, and England would always oppose any

combination calculated to produce political consequences of that

nature.[733] Metternich was no less emphatic in protesting against the

pretensions of the King of the French to dictate on such a subject to

an independent State. Nor was he less decided in declaring that the

general interests of Europe would be endangered by Isabella's marriage

with a son of Louis Philippe. In his opinion the whole Spanish

question might be amicably settled by the betrothal of the Queen

to a son of Don Carlos, without any sacrifice of their respective

rights, as in the case of Ferdinand and Isabella in the fifteenth

century. This was a view of the case, however, with which the

British government was unable to concur. "Prince Metternich," wrote

Aberdeen,[734] "has been misled by a fancied historical analogy. The

solution, he suggests, might have been productive of good whilst the

civil war was in progress and whilst Don Carlos was in possession of

the northern provinces. But, now that he and his adherents have been

driven from Spain as fugitives, it would be regarded with the utmost

repugnance by the majority of Spaniards. A marriage of the Queen with

a son of Don Carlos, although it might reconcile the personal claims

of each, would inevitably bring into fierce and hostile contact the

passions and opinions of their adherents."

Pageot's mission, therefore, had done little to advance the question

of Isabella's marriage. Meanwhile, Count Toreno, Christina's

confidential adviser in Paris, had, on several occasions, sought

out Lord Cowley, the British ambassador, for the express purpose of

informing him that the Queen-Mother would prefer to see her daughter

married to a Coburg rather than to a Bourbon prince.[735] At the same

time Espartero was known to be engaged in attempting to negotiate her

marriage with the third son of the King of Bavaria. Louis Philippe,

for his part, was more than ever determined to restrict her choice

of a husband to the Bourbon candidates, and, in Lord Cowley's

opinion, had serious thoughts "of supporting his pretensions by an

armament."[736] It was, however, by more indirect methods that he

proposed to attain his ends. All through the spring and summer of

1842 the Spanish malcontents, both in Paris and upon the frontiers,

displayed renewed activity. The Carlists and the _Christinos_,

having concluded an alliance based upon the marriage of Isabella

with a son of the Pretender, openly prepared for united action

against their common enemy, the Regent Espartero.[737] This compact

was, doubtless, the reason of the seeming approval, given by Louis

Philippe, to Metternich's utterly impracticable plan for settling the

Spanish difficulty.[738] Neither the representations of the Spanish

government nor a strong protest from Lord Aberdeen[739] had any

effect in inducing the French authorities to place any check upon the

proceedings of the conspirators.

In November, 1842, a formidable insurrection broke out at Barcelona.

The rising assumed from the outset a republican character, and, in

their first conflicts with the troops, the insurgents were uniformly

successful. The arrival of reinforcements, however, soon altered the

aspect of affairs and enabled General Van Halen to re-establish the

authority of the Regent. Once more Louis Philippe and Christina were

loudly accused of having promoted the outbreak. The Queen-Mother,

reported Lord Cowley, undoubtedly supplied the revolutionists with

money, and General Atthalin, a close personal friend of the King and

an officer of his household, had been in secret communication with

the organizers of the movement. "The Spanish government," wrote Mr.

Aston, "considers that the insurrection at Barcelona has been promoted

by France with the twofold object of preventing the conclusion of

a commercial treaty with Great Britain and of causing the downfall

of the Regent.[740] The complaints, which the Spanish _chargé

d'affaires_ was instructed to make in Paris, bore especially upon the

proceedings of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps,[741] the French consul at

Barcelona, who was accused of having actively assisted the insurgents.

M. Guizot, however, who, according to Lord Cowley, had taken no part

in these intrigues, defended the conduct of Lesseps and directed the

Duc de Glücksberg to obtain a retractation of the charges brought

against him from the Cabinet of Madrid.[742] The situation thus

assumed a very dangerous appearance, and Lord Aberdeen intervened

once more in the interests of peace. Let the Spanish government, he

urged, institute a calm and dispassionate inquiry into all the facts

alleged against the French consul and let no reparation be demanded

of the French government, unless there be evidence of his culpability

sufficient to satisfy all impartial persons.[743] This advice was

accepted, and, after a thorough examination of all the circumstances

of the case, a disavowal of certain of the more serious charges was

inserted in the _Gazette_ at Madrid. Nevertheless, as Lord Aberdeen

pointed out, "few people could read with impartial attention the

various documents without coming to the conclusion that M. de Lesseps

did very considerably exceed the limits of his consular duties," and

he, therefore, ventured to express the hope that the French government

"would no longer retain him in the place where his undue activity had

been displayed.[744]

Under ordinary circumstances, Louis Philippe would not have hesitated

to dispense with the services of a consul, who had shown sympathy

with a republican insurrection. But it being his secret policy to

create every kind of embarrassment for Espartero he declined to

recall M. de Lesseps.[745] The refusal of the French government

aroused great indignation in Spain and materially contributed to

increase the difficulties which were threatening to overwhelm the

Regent.[746] The popular general, the idol of the nation, was now an

object of execration with all parties. His stern repression of anarchy

had gained for him the hatred of the extreme democrats, whilst his

ignorance of the principles of representative government had involved

him in innumerable disputes with the Cortes. The only remedy which he

could apply to the situation was to prorogue the Chambers and assume

the powers of a military dictator. But the army was no longer his

willing instrument. The senior officers, with few exceptions, held

_Moderado_ opinions, and, for the past two years, General Narvaez and

other agents of Christina had been busily engaged in undermining their

loyalty. In the month of June, 1843, Brigadier Prim raised the cry

of "Down with Espartero," to which his troops responded eagerly. The

revolution spread rapidly. Whilst regiment after regiment deserted

the cause of the Regent, Narvaez appeared before Madrid at the head

of a division. After a feeble resistance on the part of the national

militia the capital opened its gates. In the south meanwhile, on July

29, Espartero, having been abandoned by his troops, embarked at Cadiz

on a British ship, and sought refuge in England, where he was feasted

by the City of London and acclaimed by the populace.

For some weeks prior to these events the threatening aspect of

affairs had been a frequent subject of discussion between Louis

Philippe, M. Guizot, and Lord Cowley. Both the King and his minister

had but one remedy to suggest for the many ills from which Spain

was suffering. Espartero, they declared, would speedily find that

all his difficulties would disappear, were he to devote his whole

attention to effecting the marriage of Isabella with a Bourbon.

If England desired to see the dangers now threatening the Regent

averted, let her join with France in urging him to adopt this

policy.[747] Aberdeen, however, declined to entertain this request.

The matter, he maintained, was one in which no Foreign Power had a

right to interfere, whilst, "as to whether the proposed marriage

would be likely to answer the expectations of those who counselled

it, Her Majesty's government did not feel called upon to express

an opinion."[748] But as the situation in Spain daily increased in

gravity, Lord Cowley became persuaded that a fresh complication was to

be apprehended. Should Espartero be overthrown, he warned his chief,

it was greatly to be feared that the victorious party would demand the

marriage of Isabella with a son of Louis Philippe. If such an alliance

were to be proposed, the French nation would be flattered and might

not improbably insist upon the offer being accepted, "even at the risk

of war."[749]

The downfall of Espartero and the new danger to which Cowley had

drawn his attention caused Lord Aberdeen's resolution to waver. He

now proposed that France and England should unite their efforts for

the purpose of restoring order in Spain. Under the circumstances this

was practically an intimation that he was prepared to reconsider

his often-repeated declaration that the marriage of Isabella was an

exclusively Spanish affair. It was certainly interpreted in this sense

by Louis Philippe and M. Guizot, who accepted the offer with the

utmost alacrity. It was their policy to affect the greatest confidence

that, in their hour of triumph, Christina and her friends would

defer to the advice of France in all matters. But in their hearts

they had doubtless grave misgivings upon the subject, and they were,

consequently, only too delighted to obtain the support of England to

their schemes. Marshal Sébastiani was at once despatched to London to

confer upon the situation.[750] He was to assure Lord Aberdeen that

Louis Philippe would never allow one of his sons to marry the Queen

of Spain. Personally the King would prefer that she should marry a

son of Don Carlos, but he would not oppose her union with any member

of either the Spanish or Neapolitan branch of the House of Bourbon.

Scarcely, however, had the marshal arrived in England than it was

announced that Queen Victoria purposed to pay the king of the French

a visit at the Château d'Eu, near le Tréport. Her Majesty was to

be accompanied by her Foreign Secretary, who would thus be enabled

personally to discuss matters with M. Guizot.

The Queen duly arrived at Eu, on September 2, and prolonged her stay

until the 7th, as the guest of the King. In every respect the visit

proved an immense success.[751] Her Majesty's affectionate regard for

Louis Philippe was destined, before long, to diminish greatly, but she

appears always to have looked back with pleasure upon the days spent

in company with his family at Eu.[752] Although social amenities

were the feature of the visit, Lord Aberdeen and M. Guizot were

enabled to discuss grave matters of State. Both appear to have been

equally satisfied with the result of their informal conferences,[753]

and their agreement upon Spanish affairs was afterwards confirmed

by Aberdeen in an official despatch. "All that can at present be

done," he wrote, "is that both governments should act cordially and

unreservedly together, taking for the principle of their conduct

the real good of Spain, without reference to the supposed separate

interests of either. . . . Her Majesty's government are still of

opinion that to the Queen and the nation should be left the selection

of the Royal Consort. But they will not be found unwilling to offer

such friendly counsel to the Spanish government as may aid them in

coming to a sound decision. With this view, although Her Majesty's

government cannot admit that the preferable claims of any prince

or family are such as to control the free choice of the Spanish

government, they would be fully disposed to concur in the proposition

of the Cabinet of the Tuileries and to recommend that the selection

of the Queen's Consort should be made from the descendants of Philip

V. . . ."[754]

Shortly after the conclusion of the Queen's visit to Eu, M. de

Jarnac,[755] the French _chargé d'affaires_ in London, was the guest

of Lord Aberdeen at Haddo. On one occasion his host placed in his

hands a letter in which he referred to the "cordial understanding,"

which he now believed had been established between France and

England.[756] This designation struck M. Guizot as singularly happy,

and both he and Louis Philippe henceforward constantly employed it to

describe the complete accord existing between the French and British

governments.

An occasion quickly arose which enabled England to show that "the

cordial understanding" was, so far as she was concerned, no diplomatic

fiction. The Duc de Bordeaux, more commonly known by the title of

Comte de Chambord which he shortly afterwards assumed, arrived in

London, towards the end of November. The prince was the posthumous

son of the Duc de Berri and the sole surviving male representative

of the elder branch of the Bourbons. No sooner was he installed in

the house, which had been taken for him in Belgrave Square, than

hundreds of French legitimists flocked to London. They were for the

most part members of the old noble families, but among the pilgrims

was M. Berryer, the distinguished advocate and parliamentary orator.

Even old Chateaubriand, who since the Revolution of July had taken no

part in politics, journeyed to London to testify his devotion to the

prince, whom he and his party acclaimed as _Henri V. King of France

and Navarre_.[757] These proceedings aroused considerable excitement

in France and caused Louis Philippe and his ministers some uneasiness.

The French ambassador had already been instructed to urge that Queen

Victoria should refuse to receive the young prince, on the ground that

it was the evident intention of his adherents to give to his visit the

character of a political demonstration against the House of Orleans.

The Queen[758] had promptly signified her readiness to comply with

this demand. It was not possible, however, to accede to a further

request, made after the arrival of the Duc de Bordeaux in London,

that the proceedings in Belgrave Square should be forcibly put a

stop to, seeing that they in no way infringed the law of England. An

intimation was, nevertheless, conveyed to His Royal Highness that

Her Majesty greatly disliked these demonstrations and would, in

consequence, be pleased to hear that he had decided to curtail his

stay in London. This message produced the required effect. The Duc de

Bordeaux, a few days later, departed from Belgrave Square, and, during

the remainder of the time which he spent in England, his conduct was

irreproachable.[759]

The promptitude with which the Queen and her government had responded

to his wishes was very gratifying to Louis Philippe. In their Speeches

from the Throne, both Sovereigns, at the opening of their respective

Parliaments, alluded to "the cordial understanding" which had been

established between their governments. Nevertheless, before the close

of the session of 1844, the two countries were once more upon the

brink of war. In the year 1839, a company had been formed at Nantes

for the purpose of founding a French colony in New Zealand. The

undertaking was supported by the government, which proposed annexing

both islands. But, before the arrival of the French expedition,

Captain Hobson proclaimed the sovereignty of Her Britannic Majesty

over New Zealand, and its acquisition was duly notified in the

_London Gazette_ of October 2, 1840. The French government bowed

before the accomplished fact, but prepared to seek another outlet in

the Pacific. The following year, accordingly, a squadron, under the

command of Admiral Dupetit-Thouars, was dispatched to take possession

of the Marquesas Islands, where it was proposed to establish a penal

colony. Not content, however, with carrying out his instructions the

admiral, upon his own responsibility, proceeded to declare a French

protectorate over Tahiti, the most important of the islands of the

Society group. More than fifty years before, Tahiti had been visited

by the first English missionaries. Owing to their unremitting efforts,

the islanders had gradually been converted to the Protestant religion

and had acquired civilized habits. On two occasions the Sovereign,

Queen Pomare, had offered to place herself under the protection of the

British flag, but both Canning and Palmerston had declined to accede

to her proposal. In August, 1842, Admiral Dupetit-Thouars anchored off

the island. He came to exact reparation for the alleged ill-treatment

of two French priests. He demanded a large indemnity and threatened

a bombardment, unless payment were made within twenty-four hours. It

was altogether out of the power of Queen Pomare to comply with these

conditions. Resistance was, however, out of the question. By the

advice of the French consul, M. Meerenhout, she begged to be allowed

to place herself under the protection of France. It was M. Meerenhout

who was supposed to have counselled the French admiral to make his

descent upon the island.[760]

The admiral's report of his proceedings at Tahiti afforded little

satisfaction either to the King or to M. Guizot.[761] But to have

disavowed him would have exposed them to the charge of truckling

to England--an accusation which would probably have proved fatal

to the existence of the government. The establishment of a French

protectorate over the islands was, accordingly, published in the

_Moniteur_ of March 20, 1843. The announcement was much resented

in England. It was not possible, however, for England to object to

France assuming a responsibility which she herself had twice declined

to undertake. Lord Aberdeen's communications with M. Guizot on the

subject were, consequently, confined to the expression of a hope that

the British missionaries would not be interfered with, and that the

sovereign rights of Queen Pomare would be respected. With both these

requests the French government readily promised to comply.[762] But,

in the meantime, affairs at Tahiti had not been progressing smoothly.

When the Queen was induced to invoke the protection of France, Mr.

Pritchard, the British consul, was absent from the island on a visit

to Australia. Pritchard had, for a long time past, been engaged in

missionary work and in trading in the South Seas. According to his

own statement, however, upon his appointment to the post of consul at

Tahiti, he had severed his connection with the Methodist missionary

society of which he had been a member.[763] Meerenhout, the French

consul, on the other hand, was an ardent Roman Catholic, but, like

his British colleague, he too combined the business of trading with

his official duties.[764] Racial prejudice, sectarian zeal and trade

rivalry account sufficiently for the bitter enmity which existed

between the two men. The news of Admiral Dupetit-Thouars' proceedings

reached Pritchard at Sidney, and his own correspondence shows that he

started upon his return journey with the intention of doing everything

in his power to induce the British government "to interfere" and with

the expectation of finding "many difficulties to encounter."[765]

His first act upon his arrival at Tahiti was to instigate Queen

Pomare, over whom he appears to have had great influence, to write

to Her Britannic Majesty. In this curious document Queen Pomare,

after inviting her "sister friend" to commiserate with her in the

difficulties in which she was involved with the French, begged her

"to send a large ship of war" to her assistance. The circumstances

under which the demand for French protection had been extorted from

her were narrated, much space being devoted to the part played in the

transaction by M. Meerenhout, "a very bad and troublesome man."[766]

It was evident to Lord Aberdeen that the attitude adopted by Mr.

Pritchard might at any moment produce some disagreeable incident, the

danger of a chance collision being enhanced by the ill-feeling which

prevailed between the French and British naval officers. He decided,

therefore, to appoint Major-General Miller, upon whose prudence and

judgment he could depend, consul-general of the Pacific Islands,

and to place under his orders all the British consuls in the South

Seas. At the same time, he sent off instructions to Mr. Pritchard

enjoining him to recommend a prudent line of conduct to Queen Pomare

and carefully "to avoid any expression calculated to encourage her

or her chiefs to expect assistance from England." Her Majesty's

government, whilst strongly disapproving the action of the French

authorities at Tahiti and deploring the humiliations inflicted upon

the Queen, "was precluded from interfering authoritatively on her

behalf."[767] But, before this despatch could reach its destination,

Admiral Dupetit-Thouars reappeared at Tahiti. On this occasion he had

returned to complain of some incident connected with the hoisting

of a flag. After a few days spent in investigating the matter, he

pronounced the islanders to be animated by a thoroughly bad spirit.

On November 6, 1843, Queen Pomare was declared deposed, and Tahiti

a French possession. Having issued this proclamation the admiral

proceeded to land troops and to occupy the island. In his despatch to

his government, explaining the reasons which had induced him to take

this step, he imputed the chief blame for the unrest of the natives to

Mr. Pritchard.[768]

The news of these events reached Europe in the month of February,

1844, and evoked a great outburst of indignation in England. Louis

Philippe and M. Guizot were again placed in a most embarrassing

situation. Should they refuse to uphold the action of the admiral,

their conduct would be assailed on all sides as a cowardly betrayal

of French interests at the bidding of England. On the other hand, the

ratification of his act, if it should not entail war, must certainly

put an end to "the cordial understanding," the maintenance of which,

for the present, was essential to the successful execution of their

Spanish policy. Of these two alternatives, the second unquestionably

presented the greatest disadvantages. At a Cabinet Council, on

February 25, it was decided to adhere to the protectorate, but to

disavow the last proceedings of Admiral Thouars and to reinstate

Queen Pomare in the sovereignty of which she had been deprived.[769]

A few weeks later, on April 10, Lord Aberdeen informed Mr. Pritchard

that he would be transferred to the Navigator Islands. In deciding to

remove him from Tahiti, the government in no way desired to express

disapprobation of his past conduct, but, for the sake both of his own

comfort and of the maintenance of good relations with France, it was

felt to be advisable to replace him by some person who had not been

connected with the transactions of the past two years.[770] This

measure of precaution was, however, of no avail. A month before the

despatch of these instructions Mr. Pritchard had departed from Tahiti,

but under very different circumstances from those contemplated by Lord

Aberdeen. The disavowal of Admiral Thouars was made the subject of a

fierce attack in the Chamber upon the Soult-Guizot Cabinet. In the

course of the debates, certain deputies displayed great hostility to

England and indulged in much intemperate language. This ebullition

of temper was not treated very seriously in England. But it was a

different matter when the Prince de Joinville, who was a strong

supporter of Admiral Thouars, saw fit to publish a pamphlet, in which

the question of a war with Great Britain was discussed in all its

bearings. Only the year before His Royal Highness had been the guest

of Queen Victoria at Windsor, and the appearance of his work, entitled

_Note sur l'état des forces navales de la France_, created a most

disagreeable impression at Court, upon the government and upon all

classes of the people. Louis Philippe, who had never authorized the

publication of his son's imprudent pamphlet, was genuinely distressed

and did all in his power to suppress it.[771]

Public attention, however, was speedily diverted from the Prince

de Joinville to the Tsar. Suddenly, on May 31, 1844, the Court was

informed that Nicholas would arrive on a visit to England within the

next twenty-four hours. At Ascot races and at the various festivities

which were hastily arranged in his honour, his appearance excited

universal curiosity. On every occasion it was plainly his intention

to impress, not only the Court and high society, but all classes of

the people with the sincerity of his desire to establish the most

friendly relations between his empire and Great Britain.[772] To

Peel, Aberdeen and Wellington, with whom he had some confidential

conversations, he was at pains to contrast his respect and affection

for England with the dislike and the contempt with which he regarded

Louis Philippe, M. Guizot, and the French nation generally. Sir Robert

Peel, however, appears to have told him plainly that he and his

colleagues were most desirous that, at the death of Louis Philippe,

his crown should pass to his next heir in the Orleans line without

disturbance or opposition. But having given emphatic expression to his

hatred of the July Monarchy, Nicholas put forward a distinct proposal.

Turkey was sick, very sick, upon the point of death. It would be a

critical moment when the Ottoman empire should break up completely.

Nevertheless, he apprehended danger only from the ambitious and

aggressive spirit of the French. Let, therefore, England, Austria and

Russia agree to act in concert, without reference to France, and all

would be well.[773] The British ministers would not appear altogether

to have rejected this proposition. But it is difficult to believe

the story[774] that distinct pledges on the subject were given, and

that Nicholas, in consequence, was tempted to embark upon those

measures which were to result in the Crimean war. It is unnecessary,

however, to discuss here whether the conferences of 1844 were in any

degree responsible for the war ten years later. The Tsar's visit had

no immediate effect upon the European situation in general, or upon

Franco-British relations in particular. Nothing that he had said or

done during his nine days' stay in England had in any way impaired

"the cordial understanding." He had probably a shrewd idea, however,

that complications in more than one direction would, before long,

greatly endanger its existence. An instinctive perception of coming

trouble may have been the secret of his sudden determination to visit

England.

On June 6, three days before the departure of the Tsar, Aberdeen was

informed officially that French troops might not improbably be ordered

to enter the territory of the Emperor of Morocco.[775] The famous Arab

chieftain, Abd-el-Kader, with whom the French had been at war for a

long time past, had recently sought refuge within the frontiers of

the Moorish empire. On former occasions, when hard pressed, he had

eluded capture in this manner. Representations had frequently been

made at Fez, on the subject of the facilities which were alleged to

have been afforded him for renewing the struggle. These complaints,

however, had hitherto produced little or no effect, and Marshal

Bugeaud, the governor of Algiers, consequently urged the adoption of

stronger measures. Neither Louis Philippe nor his ministers desired

to begin hostilities, but, on May 30, 1844, a French force, under

General de Lamoricière, was attacked by a body of Moroccan cavalry

upon the Algerian side of the frontier. The situation at once assumed

a very grave character. The French consul at Tangier was instructed to

proceed to Fez to demand the punishment of the Moorish commander, the

expulsion of Abd-el-Kader, and the withdrawal of the troops assembled

close to the French frontier. At the same time, a squadron under

the Prince de Joinville was despatched to Moroccan waters[776] and

preparations were made for reinforcing Marshal Bugeaud.

The news that hostilities were impending caused great dissatisfaction

in England. Ministers were questioned upon the subject in both

Houses and the press commented upon the affair with much acrimony.

Under pretext of obtaining redress for some more or less imaginary

grievance, Morocco, it was predicted, would be invaded and, without

doubt, permanently occupied. The fate which had befallen the Dey

of Algiers was assuredly reserved for the Emperor of Morocco. This

general feeling of uneasiness and suspicion was increased by the

selection of the Prince de Joinville, the author of the recent

pamphlet, for the command of the squadron sent to cruise off

Tangier.[777] The two governments, nevertheless, maintained their

friendly communications. M. Guizot gave the most positive assurances

that every effort would be made to settle the affair peacefully, and

undertook that, should hostilities break out, Tangier[778] would

not be bombarded nor would any portion of Morocco be appropriated.

Aberdeen was not prepared to deny that the French government had grave

cause for complaint. Although it had been considered necessary for

the protection of British interests that a squadron should be sent to

the Moroccan coast, the British fleet in those waters, he promised

the French ambassador, would be numerically inferior to that of the

Prince de Joinville.[779] Had he regarded it as in the smallest degree

probable that his proposal would be accepted, he would, doubtless,

have suggested that England should act as mediator in the quarrel.

But, in spite of the fact that "the cordial understanding" had

been loudly proclaimed, the idea of allowing England to interfere

would have been so unpopular in France that no government could

have ventured to entertain it. Under these circumstances Aberdeen

could only direct Mr. Drummond Hay, the British consul at Tangier,

to proceed to Fez and to endeavour to prevail upon the Emperor to

acquiesce in the French demands. Notwithstanding that the Moors had

a second time attacked the column of General de Lamoricière, strong

hopes were entertained, at the end of July, that actual war might

still be averted.

On July 30, 1844, _The Times_ announced the startling news that Mr.

Pritchard, the British consul at Tahiti, had arrived in England,

after having been arrested, cast into a dungeon and finally expelled

from the island by the French military authorities. In answer to a

question put to him, the following night, by Sir Charles Napier in

the House of Commons, Sir Robert Peel declared that, if the reports

which the government had received were true, "a gross outrage" had

undoubtedly been perpetrated. But, when the next day M. de Jarnac

spoke to Lord Aberdeen on the subject, he was authorized to inform

M. Guizot that the Prime Minister could not admit that his words had

been correctly reported in the morning papers.[780] The first accounts

of Mr. Pritchard's case would seem to have been somewhat inaccurate.

When all the circumstances were brought to light, it was evident that

the British government had just cause to complain of the treatment

which he had experienced, but it was, at the same time, no less clear

that his own conduct had been most injudicious. Immediately upon the

proclamation of French sovereignty over Tahiti, Mr. Pritchard struck

his flag and sent a protest to Admiral Thouars. From this moment he

assumed so anomalous a position that it is not surprising that the

French governor, Admiral Bruat, should have refused to recognize

it. According to Pritchard's own statement, he "continued to perform

his functions as consul, except in corresponding with the French

authorities, and continued to act as the accredited agent of Great

Britain to Queen Pomare." Furthermore, he appears to have invited the

deposed Queen to take up her abode in his house, where she stayed

until, "considering it not safe to remain on shore," she decided

to go on board H.M.S. _Dublin_, which was lying in the harbour of

Papeite.[781]

The natives meanwhile were growing restless and evincing a

determination to resist the imposition of foreign rule. Their

hostility, in the opinion of the French officers, was to be ascribed

mainly to the pernicious example set them by Mr. Pritchard. No event

of importance, however, occurred until March 2, 1844, on which date,

during the absence of the governor from Papeite, a French sentry was

alleged to have been assaulted by a native. M. d'Aubigny, the senior

officer on the spot, thereupon proclaimed martial law throughout the

island and decreed the arrest of Mr. Pritchard, who was forthwith

imprisoned in an underground chamber beneath the guard room of a

block house. After he had been in captivity for four days and had

endured much discomfort, Admiral Bruat returned to Papeite. The

governor, perceiving at once that his subordinate had acted with undue

precipitation, ordered the release of Mr. Pritchard and his removal

to a British vessel, _The Cormorant_, which, on March 13, quitted the

island and carried him to Valparaiso.[782]

"Never since I have been in this country," wrote M. de Jarnac, "have I

seen anything to equal the excitement which the news from Tahiti has

aroused. The religious party took up the case at once. Meetings of the

'_Saints_' have been convened, violent speeches have been delivered

all over the country, and pictures representing certain of the

events connected with the affair have been exhibited. The papers are

very violent. Lord Aberdeen appears to be growing more apprehensive

daily. He is convinced that some form of satisfaction must be given.

He wishes, however, to leave the initiative of proposing it to

Your Excellency: but I happen to know that the plan of sending Mr.

Pritchard straight back to Tahiti has been under discussion by the

Cabinet."[783] In France the excitement was scarcely less intense.

The newspapers, with one accord, called loudly upon the government

to stand by its officers, and to deny Great Britain any kind of

reparation, even at the risk of war. The production of _Charles_ IV.

at the Opera House evoked a furious manifestation of hostility to

England. Fortunately, however, the session was brought to a close on

August 5, and, in the meantime, M. Guizot resolutely refused to make

any statement about the affair in the Chambers.[784]

But although the prorogation afforded him some relief, M. Guizot

was, nevertheless, in a position of extreme difficulty. His friends

unceasingly warned him that he must resist the demands of England,

or be prepared to succumb to the outburst of popular indignation

which any concessions would provoke.[785] Under these circumstances

he decided that complete inaction was, for the present, the safest

course to adopt. "The greater the excitement," he instructed Jarnac,

"the more necessary it becomes to allow it time to cool down. For

the moment we must abstain from all discussion of the subject."

Nevertheless, when interviewing Aberdeen, he would do well to

bring forward those arguments which he himself was employing in

his conversations with Lord Cowley. Stress should be laid upon

the fact that Pritchard had ceased to act as consul. As a private

individual whose presence was regarded as prejudicial to good order,

the colonial authorities had a universally acknowledged right to

expel him. At the same time, however, it could not be denied that

"some of the proceedings which had attended his removal had been

irregular. . . ."[786]

Hitherto Lord Aberdeen had studiously refrained from formulating any

precise demand. But, on August 13, after a meeting of the Cabinet,

he directed Cowley to give M. Guizot clearly to understand that,

unless satisfaction in some shape were voluntarily offered, he must

transmit "a formal and detailed statement of the grounds upon which

Her Majesty's government founded its expectations of redress."[787]

In England anger at the continued silence of the French government

was rising to a dangerous pitch. On August 14, at a meeting at Exeter

Hall, at which Mr. Pritchard himself was present, men, who in most

international disputes would have advocated peace at any price,

gave utterance to the most warlike sentiments. Two days later came

the news that the answer of the Emperor of Morocco to the French

_ultimatum_ having been considered unsatisfactory, Tangier had been

bombarded. "War," wrote M. de Jarnac, "is now generally regarded as

inevitable."[788] Lord Cowley was instructed to represent that "the

attack upon Tangier, after the repeated assurance of M. Guizot that it

would be respected under all circumstances, had greatly surprised the

British government . . . any occupation of the coast of Morocco could

not fail to be viewed in a very serious light by Great Britain, and

must lead to evils of great magnitude.[789]"

M. Guizot, however, adhered resolutely to his plan "of allowing time

for the excitement to cool down" in England, and he still forbore

to offer any satisfaction for the treatment to which Mr. Pritchard

had been subjected. Both he and the King appear to have strangely

underestimated the intensity of the resentment to which the Tahiti

affair had given rise. "The two governments," he informed Jarnac,

"were not yet agreed in their appreciation of the facts imputed to Mr.

Pritchard," and it was, consequently, impossible for the present to

discuss the nature of the reparation which might be due to him. Again,

a few days later, he directed him to inform Lord Aberdeen that his

despatch of the 13th would have to be deliberated upon by the Council,

"many of the members of which were absent from Paris."[790] Meanwhile,

the press of both countries was busily engaged in embittering the

quarrel. Some highly offensive attacks upon the private life of Mr.

Pritchard appeared in the French papers, whilst _The Times_ published

letters, purporting to have been written by naval officers who had

witnessed the bombardment of Tangier, in which the most insulting

doubts were cast upon the seamanship of the Prince de Joinville and

upon the fighting qualities of the French sailors.[791] M. Guizot,

however, continued to display a lofty indifference to the popular

excitement on both sides of the Channel. He was content to enjoin M.

de Jarnac to impress upon Lord Aberdeen that it "would be a disgrace,

were the peace of the world to be disturbed on account of Pritchard,

Pomare and d'Aubigny."[792]

But the young diplomatist in charge of the French embassy in London

was, fortunately, alive to the dangers of the situation. Ever since

the first arrival of the news from Tahiti, M. de Jarnac had sought

to convince his government that the affair was highly serious. Nor

was it only to M. Guizot that he addressed his warnings. Having been

charged to deliver a letter from the King to Prince Albert, he took

the opportunity, thus afforded him, of communicating his fears to

Louis Philippe himself. He begged him to believe that at a recent

Cabinet Council Lord Aberdeen had been the only minister to oppose a

large increase of the navy. "Were it not for the confidence reposed

in the wisdom of Your Majesty, the situation would resemble in many

unfortunate particulars that of 1840."[793] He daily adjured M. Guizot

to reflect most seriously upon the danger of deferring any longer his

reply to the British government. "People in England are discussing

alliances and talk of nothing but war. M. de Nesselrode is staying at

Brighton. He affects to be unconcerned with politics. But it is said

that he remains here in order that he may be upon the spot, should

a serious disagreement arise between France and England. If that be

his object, fortune may have favoured his designs in a remarkable

manner."[794]

The British Parliament was to be prorogued on September 5, and,

unless an announcement could be made in the Queen's Speech that a

settlement had been arrived at, war, it was generally felt, could

scarcely be avoided. Even M. Guizot began to realize that, if the

peace was to be preserved, he must propose some form of reparation.

On several occasions Jarnac had hinted that the British government

might very possibly be satisfied, were a pecuniary indemnity to be

offered to Mr. Pritchard.[795] Unquestionably, the payment of a sum

of money would be regarded in France as less objectionable than most

other forms of reparation. But, having proposed to the King and the

Cabinet that the affair should be settled on those lines, and having

obtained their assent, M. Guizot still deferred transmitting an offer

of pecuniary compensation to London. In a despatch, dated August 29, a

copy of which was to be given to Lord Aberdeen, he stoutly maintained

the right of the authorities at Tahiti to expel Mr. Pritchard from

the island. His imprisonment, however, and certain other acts of

which M. d'Aubigny had been guilty, could not be defended, and that

officer would, in consequence, receive in due course a notification

of the censure which the government had passed upon his conduct. He

could concede no more, he told Lord Cowley, and he fully intended

to retire from office, if further redress were to be demanded.[796]

Nevertheless, he appears privately to have informed M. de Jarnac

that he was transmitting a second despatch, containing an offer of

a money payment to Mr. Pritchard, which he was to communicate to

Lord Aberdeen, should the British government regard the reprimand,

administered to M. d'Aubigny, as an inadequate reparation. This,

as he doubtless expected, was the view taken of his first despatch

by the Cabinet in London. Jarnac, in consequence, lost no time in

assuring Lord Aberdeen that an offer of a pecuniary indemnity would

be made. Had he not taken this responsibility upon himself, he was

convinced that the customary announcement that "friendly relations

existed with other countries" would have been omitted from the Queen's

Speech, and "the whole of Europe would have been thrown into a state

of perturbation." On the following day, September 4, he placed in the

hands of Lord Aberdeen the official offer of the French government

to indemnify Mr. Pritchard by the payment of a sum of money, the

amount of which was to be determined by the admirals commanding the

French and British fleets in the Pacific. Aberdeen pronounced the

proposed satisfaction "rather slender," but assured him that he

might now consider the matter as settled.[797] Twenty-four hours

later Parliament was prorogued, and the happy termination of the

Pritchard affair was announced in the Speech from the Throne. "The

danger," wrote Queen Victoria to the King of the Belgians, had been

"imminent."[798]

The settlement of the Tahiti dispute was quickly followed by the

welcome news that France had concluded peace with the Emperor of

Morocco. Marshal Bugeaud, on August 14, had won a decisive victory

over the Moors on the river Isly, whilst at sea the Prince de

Joinville, after silencing the forts of Tangier, had, on August 15,

destroyed the defences of Mogador. Neither the King nor M. Guizot

desired to prosecute the campaign any further. They had obtained

all the advantages which they could hope to derive from active

hostilities. They had proved that they were not to be deterred, by

the irritation which their action had called forth in England, from

inflicting a severe punishment upon the Moors. The national thirst

for military glory had been sufficiently appeased by the successes

which had already been achieved. Under these circumstances, they were

not disposed to be exacting in their conditions. Provided the Emperor

would submit to the terms set forth in their original _ultimatum_,

they would not insist upon an indemnity, but would recall their troops

and forthwith suspend hostilities. The Court of Fez promptly acceded

to these moderate demands, and, on September 10, 1844, a treaty of

peace was signed at Tangier.

The cessation of hostilities between France and Morocco removed much

of the resentment which recent events in the Mediterranean and in

the Pacific had aroused in England. Notwithstanding that, at the end

of August, 1844, the two countries had been upon the brink of war,

Louis Philippe, early in October, was enabled to return the visit

which Queen Victoria, the year before, had paid him at the Château

d'Eu. During his stay in England the King was installed with much

magnificence as a Knight of the Garter at Windsor, and, on every

occasion on which he was seen in public, was accorded a hearty welcome

by the people. Isabella's marriage still occupied the foremost place

in his thoughts. That question, however, had made but little progress,

in spite of the overthrow of Espartero and of the triumph of Christina

and the _Moderados_.

After the flight of the Regent Spain had passed under the rule of

Ramon Maria Narvaez, the Captain-General of Castile, an able and

unscrupulous adventurer. The Liberals, who had joined with the

_Moderados_ in encompassing the downfall of Espartero, were quickly

forced to realize the magnitude of their folly. Parliamentary

government was practically abolished, and any attempts to resist

the authority of the dictator were mercilessly repressed. Over two

hundred executions for political offences, during the space of one

year, broke the spirit of the democratic party, and gave the country

an outward appearance of tranquillity. The difficulty of selecting a

Regent in the place of Espartero had, in the meantime, been overcome

by the unconstitutional declaration of the Cortes, on November 8,

1843, that the Queen was of full age, although she had only entered

upon her fourteenth year. The question having thus been settled,

Christina, in the spring of 1844, left Paris and returned to Madrid,

accompanied by her husband, Nuñoz, henceforward to be known as the

Duke of Rianzarez.

In 1844 the eldest son of Don Carlos, the two sons of Don Francisco

de Paula, and Count Trapani, the brother of the King of Naples, and

of Christina herself, were, for all practical purposes, the only

unmarried male descendants of Philip V. If, therefore, the principle

proclaimed by Louis Philippe were to be adhered to, Isabella's choice

of a husband must be restricted to these four princes. To each one,

however, there were serious objections. Although a suitable candidate

in other respects, the son of Don Carlos was ineligible on political

grounds.[799] The idea of her daughter's marriage with either of the

sons of Don Francisco de Paula was most distasteful to Christina.

Notwithstanding that their mother, the Infanta Carlotta, was her

sister, she had for a long time past looked upon her as her worst

enemy. Nor had the death of this princess, early in 1844,[800] greatly

diminished the animosity with which she regarded this branch of the

family. But in addition to the feud which had existed for so many

years between Christina and their mother, both young men for different

reasons were objectionable in themselves. The appearance of the elder,

Don Francisco de Asis, Duke of Cadiz, was ridiculous and effeminate,

and he, moreover, was generally believed to be impotent. Christina,

however, appears to have regarded the loudly professed Liberalism

of Don Enrique, Duke of Seville, as a more serious objection to his

marriage with her daughter than the physical unfitness of his elder

brother. The fourth candidate, Count Trapani, was an unattractive,

backward youth of sixteen, whose life had hitherto been spent within

the walls of a Jesuit College at Rome. The difficulties, however,

in the way of his marriage with Isabella were mainly political.

Metternich greatly disliked the notion of a closer connection between

the absolute Court of Naples and the constitutional monarchy of

Spain.[801] Furthermore, the Spanish people despised the Neapolitans,

and could not fail to resent the idea of selecting the Royal Consort

from the Neapolitan branch of the Bourbons.[802]

Count Trapani, nevertheless, was chosen by Louis Philippe and M.

Guizot as the most suitable husband for Isabella. In the summer of

1844, the French agents, both at Naples and at Madrid, were instructed

to further his candidature by all means in their power.[803]

Christina's feelings on the subject cannot be precisely determined.

There can be little doubt, however, that she never gave the project

her hearty support. Probably she realized that it was impracticable

by reason of the dislike with which it was certain to be regarded by

Spaniards of all classes. It is significant that one of her first

acts, after her return to Madrid, was to assure Mr. Bulwer that she

had no intention of submitting to the dictation of Louis Philippe,

and that she still hoped to arrange the marriage of Isabella with

Leopold, the son of Prince Ferdinand of Coburg.[804] Henry Bulwer had

been appointed British minister at Madrid, soon after the downfall

of the Regent. Aberdeen appears to have been anxious that a man,

less wedded than Aston to Palmerstonian traditions, should carry

out the new policy of cordially co-operating with France for the

general welfare of Spain. The French government, once Espartero had

been expelled, had hastened to resume normal diplomatic relations

with the Court of Isabella. Accordingly, almost at the same time as

Bulwer was sent to Madrid, the Comte Bresson, whose proceedings at

Brussels in 1831 have been related, was transferred from Berlin to the

Spanish capital as French ambassador. Far from acting harmoniously

together, however, they appear to have cordially disliked each other.

Bresson is described by Bulwer,[805] in his _Life of Palmerston_, as

a person sprung from the middle classes, and "consequently vulgarly

pre-occupied with his position as ambassador." Bresson,[806] for his

part, considered his English colleague as "_pas élevé_," and as a man

against whom he must constantly be on his guard, lest he should take

some liberty with him.

At the close of the year of 1844, a further complication was added to

the many difficulties which surrounded the question of the Queen's

marriage. "I believe," wrote Lord Cowley,[807] "that Louis Philippe

is thinking of the marriage of Montpensier[808] with the sister of

Isabella." The supposition was perfectly correct. It is impossible,

however, to say with certainty when the King first decided to put

forward his son as a candidate for the hand of the Infanta Fernanda.

According to Guizot,[809] the suggestion was not made until the autumn

of 1844, and it was then propounded, he alleges, for the purpose of

reconciling Christina and the Spanish people to the insignificance

of the Neapolitan alliance. But it was always, he asserts, made

perfectly clear that the Montpensier marriage could not take place

until the Queen had married and borne a child. Be that as it may, it

was not considered advisable to inform Lord Aberdeen of this project.

During the next few months, however, the new matrimonial scheme was

the subject of many rumours, and, in the month of July, 1845, a visit

of the Duke of Rianzarez to Paris was so generally believed to be

connected with this affair, that it was felt that some explanation

must be given to the British government.[810] M. Guizot, accordingly,

informed Mr. Bulwer, who happened to be in Paris on his way to London,

that he wished Lord Aberdeen to know that "King Louis Philippe and

Queen Christina were desirous to settle the marriage for private and

personal reasons into which the Infanta's fortune entered." It would

not take place for some time, he assured him, and in any case not

until Isabella had had children.[811]

On September 8, 1845, Queen Victoria paid a second visit to Louis

Philippe at the Château d'Eu. Her Majesty, Prince Albert, Aberdeen and

Peel had been considerably disturbed by the news brought by Bulwer

from Paris. But on the very day of the arrival of the Royal party at

Eu, both the King and M. Guizot declared to Lord Aberdeen, "in the

most positive and explicit manner, that until the Queen was married

and had children, they should consider the Infanta precisely as her

sister, and that any marriage with a French prince would be entirely

out of the question. . . . I distinctly understood," wrote Aberdeen

to Peel a few hours after he had received these assurances, "that it

was not only a marriage and a child, but children that were necessary

to secure the succession. I thought this was as much as we could

desire at present, and that the question of a marriage with a French

prince might safely be left to be considered, whenever the contingency

contemplated should arrive. Many things may happen in the course of a

few years."[812]

On the very day that Queen Victoria arrived at Eu, the Duc and the

Duchesse de Nemours and the Duke d'Aumale left Pampeluna, where they

had been the guests of the Spanish Royal family. The real object

of their visit would never appear to have transpired.[813] Bulwer,

for reasons which in due course he explained to Aberdeen, was not

present at Pampeluna, and delayed returning to Spain until the French

princes had recrossed the frontier. The interview, he understood,

had been arranged for the purpose of "pushing on the marriage with

Count Trapani, a marriage most unpopular in the country." He had,

therefore, decided to stay away. By absenting himself, his government

would not incur "the odium which must stigmatize all those by whom

the Neapolitan match may be conceived to have been brought about." On

the other hand, should the visit of the French princes not achieve

the desired result, they would be unable to impute its failure "to

the intrigues of the British minister." Upon his return to Madrid,

Bulwer experienced great difficulty in obtaining any information

about the state of affairs. Bresson assured him that Isabella's

health "was declared to be such as to render her marriage for the

present inopportune."[814] Christina gave him to understand that

matters were still undecided. "But her language was not that of entire

confidence, and she seemed divided between the wish to say nothing

and the desire to say enough to prevent any subsequent charge of

want of frankness." Upon the whole, he was inclined to think that

some plan was contemplated, "which it was not yet judged expedient

to avow."[815] From divers sources he learnt that the Queen-Mother,

Bresson and Carini, the Neapolitan ambassador, were suspected of an

intention "privately to betroth Isabella to Trapani, and to force

his acceptance upon the Cortes." Narvaez had been induced to support

their unconstitutional designs, "in the belief that he would be more

necessary with an unpopular, than with a popular prince."[816]

Meanwhile, M. Bresson at Madrid and M. Guizot in Paris were greatly

dissatisfied with the aspect of affairs. The King of Naples had always

been reluctant to allow his brother to be put forward as a suitor

for the hand of the Queen of Spain. He distrusted Louis Philippe

exceedingly, he was fearful of offending the Court of Vienna, he was

on bad terms with his sister Christina, and, in point of fact, had not

officially acknowledged the sovereignty of Isabella. Nevertheless,

under the vigorous pressure brought to bear upon him from Paris, he

agreed to renew diplomatic relations with the Court of Madrid, and

to empower his ambassador to discuss his brother's marriage. But,

having surmounted the difficulties at Naples, Louis Philippe and

M. Guizot were confronted by more serious obstacles at Madrid. As

time went on, the unpopularity of the Neapolitan match tended rather

to increase than to diminish. So universal was the dislike to this

connection that Guizot judged it prudent to warn Bresson to maintain

friendly relations with Don Francisco de Paula,[817] seeing that it

might be necessary before long to insist upon Isabella's marriage

with one of his sons. As the prospects of the Bourbon candidates grew

less favourable the Coburg marriage, greatly to the annoyance of

Louis Philippe, began to be discussed as a necessary alternative. The

impending visit of Prince Leopold to his brother the King of Portugal

gave rise to many rumours. There was an intrigue on foot, reported

Bresson, to promote the chances of that prince, and Bulwer, he was

convinced, was more or less concerned in it.[818]

Under these circumstances M. Guizot decided to direct M. de Jarnac to

confer upon the situation with Lord Aberdeen. He was to intimate to

him that, in fulfilment of the compact at Eu, he should now bestir

himself actively on behalf of the Bourbon candidates, and make it

perfectly clear to the Coburgs that no member of their family could be

allowed to marry Isabella. This was more than Aberdeen was prepared

to undertake. He, however, assured M. de Jarnac upon his honour that

the Coburgs should receive no encouragement either from the Court or

from the government, and promised him that they would be advised to

abandon their supposed intention of visiting Madrid.[819] Aberdeen

was at this time in receipt of Bulwer's despatch of October 30,

1845, informing him of his suspicion that Christina and Narvaez

were purposing to accomplish the Trapani marriage, in violation of

the article of the constitution which prescribed that the sovereign

must communicate his intention of contracting a matrimonial alliance

to the Cortes. He at once replied by charging him to express to the

general the sincere hope of the British government that no such plan

was under consideration. "Say to him," he wrote in conclusion, "that

you are instructed to offer no opposition to the marriage of the Queen

to Trapani, provided it be openly accomplished according to legal

forms, still less are you authorized to espouse the cause of any other

candidate."[820]

Mere friendly neutrality, however, could be of little service to

Louis Philippe and M. Guizot. A further disappointment, moreover,

was in store for them. At the end of January, 1846, General Narvaez,

who, as a supporter of the Neapolitan alliance, had been growing

very unpopular, resigned office after a violent quarrel with his

fellow-ministers.[821] When the news reached Paris that the one man

who might have effected the Trapani marriage was no longer at the

head of affairs, it was decided to make another, and a more direct,

attempt to force the British government to take action on behalf

of the Bourbon candidate. Jarnac was, accordingly, supplied with a

document, which he was to read to Lord Aberdeen. This extraordinary

paper, known as the _Memorandum of February 27_, 1846, set forth the

following conclusions: "The Count Trapani is greatly compromised: 1.

By the demonstration which has been made against him; 2. By the fall

of General Narvaez. The sons of Don Francisco de Paula are greatly

compromised: 1. By their mistaken conduct; 2. By their intimacy with

the Radical party; 3. By the dislike of the Queen-Mother and of the

young Queen herself to them. The sons of Don Carlos are for the time

out of the question. The actual situation of the descendants of Philip

V. is consequently bad. Efforts are being made to marry Prince Leopold

of Coburg either to the Queen Isabella or to the Infanta Fernanda.

Lisbon is the chief seat of these machinations. It is said that Prince

Leopold, who is to leave Lisbon on February 24, intends to visit

Madrid. Many circumstances appear to confirm the truth of this rumour.

If the present state of affairs be prolonged we may find ourselves

compelled, in order that our policy in Spain may not receive a check

which we are determined not to suffer, to declare ourselves liberated

from all engagements with regard to either marriage. Such a situation

would arise, were the marriage of the Queen or the Infanta with Prince

Leopold of Coburg or with any other prince, not a descendant of Philip

V., to appear probable or imminent. In that case we should take

immediate steps to ward off the blow by demanding the hand of either

the Queen or the Infanta for the Duc de Montpensier. We are sincerely

desirous of averting the necessity of resorting to so extreme a

measure. We see only one way in which the crisis can be avoided. The

English Cabinet must co-operate actively with us in promoting the

claims of one of the descendants of Philip V., no matter which, and in

arranging his marriage with Queen Isabella, and in preventing, in the

meanwhile, the marriage of the Infanta either with Prince Leopold or

with any other prince, not a descendant of Philip V."[822]

Aberdeen appears to have listened in silence and to have made no

protest against the unwarrantable assumptions contained in this

document. No copy of it was given to him, nor would he seem to have

asked for one.[823] Meanwhile, strange events were taking place in

Spain. The Miraflores Cabinet was quickly overthrown and, on March

17, 1846, Narvaez was once more at the head of the government. His

return to power was quickly followed by the promulgation of decrees

restricting the liberty of the press and suspending the sittings of

the Cortes.[824] Bulwer was convinced that it was decided forthwith

to betroth Isabella to Trapani, regardless of public opinion and of

legal forms.[825] But, if Narvaez ever contemplated a _coup d'état_

of this nature, he soon relinquished the idea. His tenure of office

was of very brief duration. On April 5 he was dismissed and ordered

to quit Madrid immediately. The mystery which surrounds these sudden

changes of government has never been satisfactorily unravelled. It

is certain that they were connected, more or less directly, with

Isabella's marriage. At first sight it would seem as though Christina

had resolved to discard Narvaez, because she perceived that he

was powerless to effect the Trapani marriage. Nevertheless, this

apparently obvious explanation is probably erroneous. The Queen-Mother

was never really desirous that her daughter should marry her uncle,

Trapani. But she wished to ruin Narvaez, whose secret aim it was to

diminish the influence of the Court and of the Church.[826] It is

possible, therefore, that she may have insisted upon his supporting

the Neapolitan alliance in order simply to discredit him. In this

crafty fashion she may have hoped to rid herself of the man who, she

had once declared, "was more arrogant than Espartero."[827]

On April 8, 1846, the following message[828] was received in Paris

from M. Bresson, who, doubtless, had some person in his employ in

close attendance upon Isabella. "_La reine est nubile depuis deux

heures._"[829] Whether or not this news was communicated to Lord

Cowley by M. Guizot, it was certainly known at once at the British

embassy. Christina could no longer invoke physical reasons for

delaying her daughter's marriage. But, meanwhile, the number of

Bourbon candidates was rapidly diminishing. Trapani was too unpopular,

and Don Enrique, Duke of Seville, the younger son of Don Francisco de

Paula, had recently been concerned in an insurrection in Gallicia,

and had been ordered to leave Spain. The only available husband for

Isabella among the descendants of Philip V. was, therefore, Don

Enrique's elder brother, Don Francisco, Duke of Cadiz, whom both

she and her mother disliked and despised. Christina, under these

circumstances, resolved to revert to the matrimonial combination

which she had constantly regarded as the best. The moment was not

unfavourable for openly defying Louis Philippe. Narvaez, the minister

who had always been looked upon as the chief tool of the French Court,

was in disgrace, and Isturiz, his successor, was her devoted servant.

She accordingly determined to propose to the Duke of Saxe-Coburg that

Isabella should marry his son, Prince Leopold. After informing him of

its contents, she gave the letter containing this offer to Mr. Bulwer,

asking that it might be conveyed to Lisbon by his messenger. The

British minister complied with her request and reported the affair to

his chief.

Lord Aberdeen was seriously annoyed, and at once informed M. de

Sainte-Aulaire of what had passed, assuring him that he should

administer a severe rebuke to Mr. Bulwer. Bulwer, he considered, had

violated his instructions, both in undertaking to transmit the offer

to Lisbon and in concealing Christina's proceedings from M. Bresson.

In consequence of the strictures passed upon his conduct, Bulwer

offered to resign. Aberdeen, however, in a friendly letter insisted

upon his remaining at his post.[830] A few days later, on June 29,

1846, Sir Robert Peel announced that he and his colleagues had retired

from office, and that Lord John Russell had undertaken to form a

government. On June 25, on the very day on which their Corn Bill had

been carried through the House of Lords, ministers had been defeated

in the Commons by a Radical and Protectionist coalition. In the new

administration the seals of the Foreign Office passed into the keeping

of Lord Palmerston.