MAY–JULY 1838
BORROW was now to enter upon that lengthy dispute with the Bible Society
that almost brought about an open breach, and eventually proved the
indirect cause that led to the severance of their relations. Graydon’s
mistake lay in not contenting himself with printing and distributing the
Scriptures, of which he succeeded in getting rid of an enormous quantity.
He had advertised his association with the Bible Society and proclaimed
Borrow as a colleague, and the authorities at Madrid were not greatly to
blame for being unable to distinguish between the two men. Whereas
Graydon and Rule, who was also extremely obnoxious to the Spanish Clergy,
were safe at Gibraltar or generally within easy reach of it, Borrow was
in the very midst of the enemy. He was not unnaturally furiously angry
at the situation that he conceived to have been brought about by these
evangelists in the south. He referred to Graydon as the Evil Genius of
the Society’s Cause in Spain.
It may be felt that Borrow was a prejudiced witness, he had every reason
for being so; but a despatch from Sir George Villiers to the Consul at
Malaga shows clearly how the British Minister viewed Lieutenant Graydon’s
indiscretion:
“You will communicate Count Ofalia’s note to Mr Graydon,” he writes,
“and tell him from me that, feeling as I do a lively interest in the
success of his mission, I cannot but regret that he should have
published his opinions upon the Catholic religion and clergy in a
form which should render inevitable the interference of
ecclesiastical authority. I have no doubt that Mr Graydon, in the
pursuit of the meritorious task he has undertaken, is ready to endure
persecution, but he should bear in mind that it will not lead him to
success in this country, where prejudices are so inveterate, and at
this moment, when party spirit disfigures even the best intentions.
Unless Mr Graydon proceeds with the utmost circumspection it will be
impossible for me, with the prospect of good result, to defend his
conduct with the Government, for no foreigner has a right, however
laudable may be his object, to seek the attainment of that object by
infringing the laws of the country in which he resides.” {249}
In writing to Mr Brandram, Borrow pointed out that although he had
travelled extensively in Spain and had established many depôts for the
sale of the Scriptures, not one word of complaint had been transmitted to
the Government. He had been imprisoned; but he had the authority of
Count Ofalia for saying that it was not on account of his own, but rather
of the action of others. Furthermore the Premier had advised him to
endeavour to make friends among the clergy, and for the present at least
make no further effort to promote the actual sale of the New Testament in
Madrid.
On the day following his release from prison (13th May) Borrow, after
being sent for by the British Minister, wrote to Mr Brandram as follows:—
“Sir George has commanded me . . . to write to the following
effect:—Mr Graydon must leave Spain, or the Bible Society must
publicly disavow that his proceedings receive their encouragement,
unless they wish to see the Sacred book, which it is their object to
distribute, brought into universal odium and contempt. He has lately
been to Malaga, and has there played precisely the same part which he
acted last year at Valencia, with the addition that in printed
writings he has insulted the Spanish Government in the most
inexcusable manner. A formal complaint of his conduct has been sent
up from Malaga, and a copy of one of his writings. Sir George
blushed when he saw it, and informed Count Ofalia that any steps
which might be taken towards punishing the author would receive no
impediment from him. I shall not make any observation on this matter
farther than stating that I have never had any other opinion of Mr
Graydon than that he is insane—insane as the person who for the sake
of warming his own hands would set a street on fire. Sir George said
to-day that he (Graydon) was the cause of my _harmless_ shop being
closed at Madrid and also of my imprisonment. The Society will of
course communicate with Sir George on the subject, I wash my hands of
it.”
On 23rd May Borrow wrote again to Mr Brandram:
“In the name of the _Most Highest_ take steps for preventing that
miserable creature Graydon from ruining us all.” Borrow’s use of the
term “insane” with regard to Graydon was fully justified. The Rev.
W. H. Rule wrote to him on 14th May:
“Our worthy brother Graydon is, I suppose, in Granada. I overtook
him in Cartagena, endured the process of osculation, saw him without
rhime or reason wrangle with and publicly insult our Consul there.
Had his company in the steamer to Almeria, much to my discomfort.
Never was a man fuller of love and impudence, compounded in the most
provoking manner. In Malaga, just as we were to part, he broke out
into a strain highly disagreeable, and I therefore thought it a
convenient occasion to tell him that I should have no more to do with
him. I left him dancing and raving like an energumen.”
This letter Borrow indiscreetly sent to Mr Brandram, much to Mr Rule’s
regret, who wrote to Mr Brandram, saying that whilst he had nothing to
retract, he would not have written for the eyes of the Bible Society’s
Committee what he had written to Borrow. To Mr Rule Lieut. Graydon was
“a good man, or at least a well-meaning [one], who has not the balance of
judgment and temper necessary for the situation he occupies.” He was
given to “the promulgation of Millenianism,” and to calling the Bible
“the true book of the Constitution.”
Mann had confirmed all the rumours current about Graydon. In order to
remove from his shoulders “the burden of obloquy,” Borrow’s first act on
leaving prison was to publish in the _Correo Nacional_ an advertisement
disclaiming, in the name of the Bible Society, any writings which may
have been circulated tending to lower the authorities, civil and
ecclesiastical, in the eyes of the people. He denied that it was the
Society’s intention or wish to make proselytes from the Roman Catholic
form of worship, and that it was at all times prepared to extend the hand
of brotherhood to the Spanish clergy. This notice was signed “George
Borrow, Sole authorised Agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society in
Spain.”
_El Gazeta Oficial_ in commenting on the situation, saw in the
anti-Catholic tracts circulated by Graydon “part of the monstrous plan,
whose existence can no longer be called in question, concocted by the
enemies of all public order, for the purpose of inaugurating on our
unhappy soil a _social_ revolution, just as the political one is drawing
to a close.” The Government was urged to allow no longer these attacks
upon the religion of the country. Rather illogically the article
concludes by paying a tribute to the Bible Society, “considered not under
the religious but the social aspect.” After praising its prudence for
“accommodating itself to the civil and ecclesiastical laws of each
country, and by adopting the editions there current,” it concludes with
the sophisticated argument that, “if the great object be the propagation
of evangelic maxims, the notes are no obstacle, and by preserving them we
fulfil our religious principle of not permitting to private reason the
interpretation of the Sacred Word.”
The General Committee expressed themselves, somewhat enigmatically, it
must be confessed, as in no way surprised at this article, being from
past experience learned enough in the ways of Rome to anticipate her.
“That advertisement,” Borrow wrote six months later in his Report
that was subsequently withdrawn, “gave infinite satisfaction to the
liberal clergy. I was complimented for it by the Primate of Spain,
who said I had redeemed my credit and that of the Society, and it is
with some feeling of pride that I state that it choked and prevented
the publication of a series of terrible essays against the Bible
Society, which were intended for the Official Gazette, and which were
written by the Licentiate Albert Lister, the editor of that journal,
the friend of Blanco White, and the most talented man in Spain.
These essays still exist in the editorial drawer, and were
communicated to me by the head manager of the royal printing office,
my respected friend and countryman Mr Charles Wood, whose evidence in
this matter and in many others I can command at pleasure. In lieu of
which essays came out a mild and conciliatory article by the same
writer, which, taking into consideration the country in which it was
written, and its peculiar circumstances, was an encouragement to the
Bible Society to proceed, although with secrecy and caution; yet this
article, sadly misunderstood in England, gave rise to communications
from home highly mortifying to myself and ruinous to the Bible
cause.”
Borrow had written from prison to Mr Brandram {252} telling him that it
had “pleased God to confer upon me the highest of mortal honors, the
privilege of bearing chains for His sake.” After describing how it had
always been his practice, before taking any step, to consult with Sir
George Villiers and receive his approval, and that the present situation
had not been brought about by any rashness on his, Borrow’s, part, he
proceeds to convey the following curious piece of information that must
have caused some surprise at Earl Street:—
“I will now state a fact, which speaks volumes as to the state of
affairs at Madrid. My arch-enemy, the Archbishop of Toledo, the
primate of Spain, wishes to give me the kiss of brotherly Peace. He
has caused a message to be conveyed to me in my dungeon, assuring me
that he has had no share in causing my imprisonment, which he says
was the work of the Civil Governor, who was incited to the step by
the Jesuits. He adds that he is determined to seek out my
persecutors amongst the clergy, and to have them punished, and that
when I leave prison he shall be happy to co-operate with me in the
dissemination of the Gospel!! I cannot write much now, for I am not
well, having been bled and blistered. I must, however, devote a few
lines to another subject, but not one of rejoicing or Christian
exultation. Mann arrived just after my arrest, and visited me in
prison, and there favoured me with a scene of despair, abject
despair, which nearly turned my brain. I despised the creature, God
forgive me, but I pitied him; for he was without money and expected
every moment to be seized like myself and incarcerated, and he is by
no means anxious to be invested with the honors of martyrdom.”
That the Primate of Spain should have sent to Borrow such a message is
surprising; but what is still more so is that six days later Borrow wrote
telling Mr Brandram that he had asked a bishop to arrange an interview
between him and the Archbishop of Toledo, and Sir George Villiers, who
was present, begged the same privilege. {253} On 23rd May Borrow wrote
again to Mr Brandram: “I have just had an interview with the Archbishop.
It was satisfactory to a degree I had not dared to hope for.” In his
next letter (25th May) he writes:
“I have had, as you are aware, an interview with the Archbishop of
Toledo. I have not time to state particulars, but he said amongst
other things, ‘Be prudent, the Government are disposed to arrange
matters amicably, and I am disposed to co-operate with them.’ At
parting he shook me most kindly by the hand saying that he liked me.
Sir George intends to visit him in a few days. He is an old,
venerable-looking man, between seventy and eighty. When I saw him he
was dressed with the utmost simplicity, with the exception of a most
splendid amethyst ring, the lustre of which was truly dazzling.”
There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this archiepiscopal
condescension, if the interview were not indeed sought by Borrow, that it
was a political move to pacify the wounded feelings of an outraged
Englishman at a time when the goodwill of England was as necessary to the
kingdom of Spain as the sun itself.
The upshot of the Malaga Incident was that “the Spanish Government
resolved to put an end to Bible transactions in Spain, and forthwith gave
orders for the seizure of all the Bibles and Testaments in the country,
wherever they might be deposited or exposed for sale. They notified Sir
George Villiers of the decision, expressly stating that the resolution
was taken in consequence of the ‘_Ocurrido en Malaga_.’” {254a} The
letter in which Sir George Villiers was informed of the Government’s
decision runs as follows:—
MADRID, 19_th_ _May_ 1838.
SIR,
I have the honor to inform You that in consequence of what has taken
place at Malaga and other places, respecting the publication and sale
of the Bible translated by Padre Scio, which are not complete (since
they do not contain all the Books which the Catholic Church
recognises as Canonical) nor even being complete could they be
printed unless furnished with the Notes of the said Padre Scio,
according to the existing regulations; Her Majesty has thought proper
to prevent this publication and sale, but without insulting or
molesting those British Subjects who for some time past have been
introducing them into the Kingdom and selling them at the lowest
prices, thinking they were conferring a benefit when in reality they
were doing an injury.
I have also to state to You that in order to carry this Royal
determination into effect, orders have been issued to prohibit its
being printed in Spain, in the vulgar tongue, unless it should be the
entire Bible as recognised by the Catholic Church with corresponding
Notes, preventing its admittance at the Frontiers, as is the case
with books printed in Spanish abroad; that the Bibles exposed for
public sale be seized and given to their owners in a packet marked
and sealed, upon the condition of its being sent out of the country
through the Custom Houses on the Frontier or at the Ports.
I avail myself, etc., etc.
THE COUNT OF OFALIA. {255a}
Borrow and Graydon were advised of this inhibition, and both ordered
their establishments for the sale of books to be closed, thus showing
that they were “Gentlemen who are animated with due respect for the Laws
of Spain.” {255b} At Valladolid, Santiago, Orviedo, Pontevedra, Seville,
Salamanca, and Malaga the decree was at once enforced. On learning that
the books at his depôts had all been seized, Borrow became apprehensive
for the safety of his Madrid stock of New Testaments, some three thousand
in number. He accordingly had them removed, under cover of darkness, to
the houses of his friends.
Borrow was not the man to accept defeat, and he wrote to Mr Brandram with
great cheerfulness:
“This, however, gives me little uneasiness, for, with the blessing of
God, I shall be able to repair all, always provided I am allowed to
follow my own plans, and to avail myself of the advantages which have
lately been opened—especially to cultivate the kind feeling lately
manifested towards me by the principal Spanish clergy.” {255c}
Later he wrote:
“Another bitter cup has been filled for my swallowing. The Bible
Society and myself have been accused of blasphemy, sedition, etc. A
collection of tracts has been seized in Murcia, in which the Catholic
religion and its dogmas are handled with the most abusive severity;
{256a} these books have been sworn to as having been left _by the
Committee of the Bible Society whilst in that town_, and Count Ofalia
has been called upon to sign an order for my arrest and banishment
from Spain. Sir George, however, advises me to remain quiet and not
to be alarmed, as he will answer for my innocence.” {256b}
Borrow strove to galvanise the General Committee into action. The
Spanish newspapers were inflamed against the Society as a sectarian, not
a Christian institution. “Zeal is a precious thing,” he told Mr
Brandram, “when accompanied with one grain of common sense.” The theme
of his letters was the removal of Graydon. “Do not be cast down,” he
writes; “all will go well if the stumbling block [Graydon] be removed.”
Borrow’s state of mind may well be imagined, and if by his impulsive
letters he unwittingly harmed his own cause at Earl Street, he did so as
a man whose liberty, perhaps his life even, was being jeopardised,
although not deliberately, by another whom the reforming spirit seemed
likely to carry to any excess. It must be admitted that for the time
being Borrow had forgotten the idiom of Earl Street.
The president (a bishop) of the body of ecclesiastics that was engaged in
examining the Society’s Spanish Bible, communicated with Borrow, through
Mr Charles Wood, the suggestion that “the Committee of the Bible Society
should in the present exigency draw up an exposition of their views
respecting Spain, stating what they are prepared to do and what they are
not prepared to do; above all, whether in seeking to circulate the Gospel
in this Country they harbour any projects hostile to the Government or
the established religion; moreover, whether the late distribution of
tracts was done by their connivance or authority, and whether they are
disposed to sanction in future the publication in Spain of such a class
of writings.” {257a}
Borrow was of the opinion that this should be done, although he would not
take upon himself to advise the Committee upon such a point, he merely
remarked that “the Prelate in question is a most learned and respectable
man, and one of the warmest of our friends.” {257b} The Society very
naturally declined to commit itself to any such undertaking. It would
not have been quite logical or conceivable that a Protestant body should
give a guarantee that it harboured no projects hostile to Rome.
Undeterred by the official edict against the circulation in Spain of the
Scriptures, Borrow wrote to Mr Brandram (14th June):
“I should wish to make another Biblical tour this summer, until the
storm be blown over. Should I undertake such an expedition, I should
avoid the towns and devote myself entirely to the peasantry. I have
sometimes thought of visiting the villages of the Alpujarra Mountains
in Andalusia, where the people live quite secluded from the world;
what do you think of my project?”
All this time Borrow had heard nothing from Earl Street as to the effect
being produced there by his letters. On 15th or 16th June he received a
long letter from Mr Brandram enclosing the Resolutions of the General
Committee with regard to the crisis. They proved conclusively that the
officials failed entirely to appreciate the state of affairs in Spain,
and the critical situation of their paid and accredited agent, George
Borrow. Their pride had probably been wounded by Borrow’s impetuous
requests, that might easily have appeared to them in the light of
commands. It may have struck some that the Spanish affairs of the
Society were being administered from Madrid, and that they themselves
were being told, not what it was expedient to do, but what they _must_
do. Another factor in the situation was the Committee’s friendliness for
their impulsive, unsalaried servant Lieut. Graydon, who was certainly a
picturesque, almost melodramatic figure. In any case the letter from Mr
Brandram that accompanied the Resolutions was couched in a strain of fair
play to Graydon that became a thinly disguised partizanship. At the
meeting of the Committee held on 28th May the following Resolutions had
been adopted:—
_First_.—“That Mr Borrow be requested to inform Sir George Villiers
that this Committee have written to Mr Graydon through their
Secretary, desiring him to leave Spain on account of his personal
safety.”
_Second_.—“That Mr Borrow be informed that in the absence of specific
documents, this Committee cannot offer any opinion on the proceedings
of Mr Graydon, and that therefore he be desired to obtain, either in
original or copy, the objectionable papers alleged to have been
issued by Mr Graydon and to transmit them hither.”
_Third_.—“That Mr Borrow be requested not to repeat the Advertisement
contained in the _Corréo Nacional_ of the 17th inst., and that he be
cautioned how he commits the Society by advertisements of a similar
character. And further, that he be desired to state to Sir George
Villiers that the advertisement in question was inserted by him on
the spur of the moment, and without any opportunity of obtaining
instructions from this Committee.”
In justice to the Committee, it must be said that they did not appreciate
the delicacy of the situation, being only Christians and not
diplomatists. Perhaps they were unaware that the _whole of Spain was
under martial law_, or if they were, the true significance of the fact
failed to strike them. Mr Brandram’s letter accompanying these
Resolutions is little more than an amplification of the Committee’s
decision:
“I have, I assure you,” he writes, “endeavoured to place myself in
your situation and enter into your feelings strongly excited by the
irreparable mischief which you suppose Mr G. to have done to our
cause so dear to you. Under the influence of these feelings you have
written with, what appears to us, unmitigated severity of his
conduct. But now, let me entreat you to enter into our feelings a
little, and to consider what we owe to Mr Graydon. If we have at
times thought him imprudent, we have seen enough in him to make us
both admire and love him. He has ever approved himself as an
upright, faithful, conscientious, indefatigable agent; one who has
shrunk from no trials and no dangers; one who has gone through in our
service many and extraordinary hardships. What have we against him
at present? He has issued certain documents of a very offensive
character, as is alleged. We have not seen them, neither does it
appear that you have, but that you speak from the recollections of Mr
Sothern.” {259}
The letter goes on to say that if it can be shown that Lieut. Graydon is
acting in the same manner as he did in Valencia, for which he was
admonished,
“he will assuredly be recalled on this ground. You wonder perhaps
that we for a moment doubt the fact of his reiterated imprudence; but
_audi alteram partem_ must be our rule—and besides, on reviewing the
Valencia proceedings, we draw a wide distinction. Had he been as
free, as you suppose him to be, of the trammels of office in our
service, many would say and think that he was prefectly at liberty to
act and speak as he did of the Authorities, if he chose to take the
consequences. Really in such a country it is no marvel if his Spirit
has been stirred within him! Will you allow me to remind you of the
strong things in your own letter to the Valencia ecclesiastic, the
well pointed and oft repeated Væ!”
Mr Brandram points out that strong language is frequently the sword of
the Reformer, and that there are times when it has the highest sanction;
but
“the judgment of all [the members of the Committee] will be that an
Agent of the Bible Society is a Reformer, not by his preaching or
denouncing, but by the distribution of the Bible. If Mr G’s. conduct
is no worse than it was in Valencia,” the letter continues, rather
inconsistently, in the light of the assurance in the early part that
recall would be the punishment for another such lapse into
indiscretion, “you must not expect anything beyond a qualified
disavowal of it, and that simply as unbecoming an Agent of such a
Society as ours.
“After what I have written, you will hardly feel surprised that our
Committee could not quite approve of your Advertisement. We have
ever regarded Mr Graydon as much our Agent as yourself. In three of
our printed reports in succession we make no difference in speaking
of you both. We are anxious to do nothing to weaken your hands at so
important a crisis, and we conceive that the terms we have employed
in our Resolution are the mildest we could have used. Do not insert
the Advertisement a second time. Let it pass; let it be forgotten.
If necessary we shall give the public intimation that Mr G. was, but
is not our agent any longer. Remember, we entreat you, the very
delicate position that such a manifesto places us in, as well as the
effect which it may have on Mr Graydon’s personal safety. We give
you full credit for believing it was your duty, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, to take so decided and bold a step, and
that you thought yourself fully justified by the distinction of
salaried and unsalaried Agent, in speaking of yourself as the alone
accredited Agent of the Society. Possibly when you reflect a little
upon the matter you may view it in another light. There are besides
some sentiments in the Advertisement which we cannot perhaps fully
accord with . . . If to our poor friend there has befallen the
saddest of all calamities to which you allude, should we not speak of
him with all tenderness. If he be insane I believe much of it is to
be attributed to that entire devotion with which he has devoted
himself to our work.”
No complaint can be urged against the Committee for refusing to condemn
one of their agents unheard, and without documentary evidence; but it was
strange that they should pass resolutions that contained no word of
sympathy with Borrow for his sufferings in a typhus-infested prison. It
is even more strange that the covering letter should refer to Graydon’s
sufferings and hardships and the danger to his person, without apparently
realising that Borrow _had actually_ suffered what the Committee feared
that Graydon _might_ suffer. There is no doubt that Borrow’s impulsive
letters had greatly offended everybody at Earl Street, where Lieut.
Graydon appears to have been extremely popular; and the few words of
sympathy with Borrow that might have saved much acrimonious
correspondence were neither resolved nor written.
The other side of the picture is shown in a vigorous passage from
Borrow’s Report, which was afterwards withdrawn:
“A helpless widow [the mother of Don Pascual Mann] was insulted, her
liberty of conscience invaded, and her only son incited to rebellion
against her. A lunatic [Lieut. Graydon] was employed as the
_repartidor_, or distributor, of the Blessed Bible, who, having his
head crammed with what he understood not, ran through the streets of
Valencia crying aloud that Christ was nigh at hand and would appear
in a short time, whilst advertisements to much the same effect were
busily circulated, in which the name, the noble name, of the Bible
Society was prostituted; whilst the Bible, exposed for sale in the
apartment of a public house, served for little more than a decoy to
the idle and curious, who were there treated with incoherent railings
against the Church of Rome and Babylon in a dialect which it was well
for the deliverer that only a few of the audience understood. But I
fly from these details, and will now repeat the consequences of the
above proceedings to myself; for I, I, and only I, as every
respectable person in Madrid can vouch, have paid the penalty for
them all, though as innocent as the babe who has not yet seen the
light.”
If the General Committee at a period of anxiety and annoyance failed to
pay tribute to Borrow’s many qualities, the official historian of the
Society makes good the omission when he describes him as “A strange,
impulsive, more or less inflammable creature as he must have occasionally
seemed to the Secretaries and Editorial Superintendent, he had proved
himself a man of exceptional ability, energy, tact, prudence—above all, a
man whose heart was in his work.” {262}
Borrow’s acknowledgment of the Resolutions was dated 16th June. It ran:—
“I have received your communication of the 30th ult. containing the
resolutions of the Committee, to which I shall of course attend.
“Of your letter in general, permit me to state that I reverence the
spirit in which it is written, and am perfectly disposed to admit the
correctness of the views which it exhibits; but it appears to me that
in one or two instances I have been misunderstood in the letters
which I have addressed [to you] on the subject of Graydon.
“I bear this unfortunate gentleman no ill will, God forbid, and it
will give me pain if he were reprimanded publicly or privately;
moreover, I can see no utility likely to accrue from such a
proceeding. All that I have stated hitherto is the damage which he
has done in Spain to the cause and myself, by the—what shall I call
it?—imprudence of his conduct; and the idea which I have endeavoured
to inculcate is the absolute necessity of his leaving Spain
instantly.
“Take now in good part what I am about to say, and O! do not
misunderstand me! I owe a great deal to the Bible Society, and the
Bible Society owes nothing to me. I am well aware and am always
disposed to admit that it can find thousands more zealous, more
active, and in every respect more adapted to transact its affairs and
watch over its interests; yet, with this consciousness of my own
inutility, I must be permitted to state that, linked to a man like
Graydon, I can no longer consent to be, and that if the Society
expect such a thing, I must take the liberty of retiring, perhaps to
the wilds of Tartary or the Zingani camps of Siberia.
“My name at present is become public property, no very enviable
distinction in these unhappy times, and neither wished nor sought by
myself. I have of late been subjected to circumstances which have
rendered me obnoxious to the hatred of those who never forgive, the
Bloody Church of Rome, which I have [no] doubt will sooner or later
find means to accomplish my ruin; for no one is better aware than
myself of its fearful resources, whether in England or Spain, in
Italy or in any other part. I should not be now in this situation
had I been permitted to act alone. How much more would have been
accomplished, it does not become me to guess.
“I had as many or more difficulties to surmount in Russia than I
originally had here, yet all that the Society expected or desired was
effected, without stir or noise, and that in the teeth of an imperial
_Ukase_ which forbade the work which I was employed to superintend.
“Concerning my late affair, I must here state that I was sent to
prison on a charge which was subsequently acknowledged not only to be
false but ridiculous; I was accused of uttering words disrespectful
towards the _Gefé Politico_ of Madrid; my accuser was an officer of
the police, who entered my apartment one morning before I was
dressed, and commenced searching my papers and flinging my books into
disorder. Happily, however, the people of the house, who were
listening at the door, heard all that passed, and declared on oath
that so far from mentioning the _Gefé Politico_, I merely told the
officer that he, the officer, was an insolent fellow, and that I
would cause him to be punished. He subsequently confessed that he
was an instrument of the Vicar General, and that he merely came to my
apartment in order to obtain a pretence for making a complaint. He
has been dismissed from his situation and the Queen [Regent] has
expressed her sorrow at my imprisonment. If there be any doubt
entertained on the matter, pray let Sir George Villiers be written
to!
“I should be happy to hear what success attends our efforts in China.
I hope a prudent conduct has been adopted; for think not that a
strange and loud language will find favour in the eyes of the
Chinese; and above all, I hope that we have not got into war with the
Augustines and their followers, who, if properly managed, may be of
incalculable service in propagating the Scriptures . . . _P.S._—The
Documents, or some of them, shall be sent as soon as possible.”
Nine days later (25th June) Borrow wrote:
“I now await your orders. I wish to know whether I am at liberty to
pursue the course which may seem to me best under existing
circumstances, and which at present appears to be to mount my horses,
which are neighing in the stable, and once more betake myself to the
plains and mountains of dusty Spain, and to dispose of my Testaments
to the muleteers and peasants. By doing so I shall employ myself
usefully, and at the same time avoid giving offence. Better days
will soon arrive, which will enable me to return to Madrid and reopen
my shop, till then, however, I should wish to pursue my labours in
comparative obscurity.”
Replying to Borrow’s letter of 16th June, Mr Brandram wrote (29th June):
“I trust we shall not easily forget your services in St Petersburg, but
suffer me to remind you that when you came to the point of distribution
your success ended.” {265a} This altogether unworthy remark was neither
creditable to the writer nor to the distinguished Society on whose behalf
he wrote. Borrow had done all that a man was capable of to distribute
the books. His reply was dignified and effective.
“It was unkind and unjust to taunt me with having been unsuccessful
in distributing the Scriptures. Allow me to state that no other
person under the same circumstances would have distributed the tenth
part; yet had I been utterly unsuccessful, it would have been wrong
to check me with being so, after all I have undergone, and with how
little of that are you acquainted.” {265b}
In response, Mr Brandram wrote (28th July):
“You have considered that I have taunted you with want of success in
St Petersburg. I thought that the way in which I introduced that
subject would have prevented any such unpleasant and fanciful
impression.”
That was all! It became evident to all at Earl Street that a conference
between Borrow, the Officials and the General Committee was imperative if
the air were to be cleared of the rancour that seemed to increase with
each interchange of letters. {265c} Unless something were done, a breach
seemed inevitable, a thing the Society did not appear to desire. When
Borrow first became aware that he was wanted at Earl Street for the
purpose of a personal conference, he in all probability conceived it to
be tantamount to a recall, and he was averse from leaving the field to
the enemy.
“In the name of the Highest,” he wrote, {266} “I entreat you all to
banish such a preposterous idea; a journey home (provided you intend
that I should return to Spain) could lead to no result but expense
and the loss of precious time. I have nothing to explain to you
which you are not already perfectly well acquainted with by my late
letters. I was fully aware at the time I was writing them that I
should afford you little satisfaction, for the plain unvarnished
truth is seldom agreeable; but I now repeat, and these are perhaps
among the last words which I shall ever be permitted to pen, that I
cannot approve, and I am sure no Christian can, of the system which
has lately been pursued in the large sea-port cities of Spain, and
which the Bible Society has been supposed to sanction,
notwithstanding the most unreflecting person could easily foresee
that such a line of conduct could produce nothing in the end but
obloquy and misfortune.”
Borrow saw that his departure from Spain would be construed by his
enemies as flight, and that their joy would be great in consequence.
The Spanish authorities were determined if possible to rid the country of
missionaries. The _Gazeta Oficial_ of Madrid drew attention to the fact
that in Valencia there had been distributed thousands of pamphlets
“against the religion we profess.” Sir George Villiers enquired into the
matter and found that there was no evidence that the pamphlets had been
written, printed, or published in England; and when writing to Count
Ofalia on the subject he informed him that the Bible Society distributed,
not tracts or controversial writings, but the Scriptures.
The next move on the part of the authorities was to produce sworn
testimony from three people (all living in the same house, by the way)
that they had purchased copies of “the New Testament and other Biblical
translations at the _Despacho_ on 5th May.” Borrow was in prison at the
time, and his assistant denied the sale. Documents were also produced
proving that the imprint on the title-page of the Scio New Testament was
false, as at the time it was printed no such printer as Andréas Borrégo
(who by the way was the Government printer and at one time a candidate
for cabinet rank) lived in Madrid. In drawing the British Minister’s
attention to these matters, Count Ofalia wrote (31st May):
“It would be opportune if you would be pleased to advise Mr Borrow
that, convinced of the inutility of his efforts for propagating here
the translation in the vulgar tongue of Sacred Writings without the
forms required by law, he would do much better in making use of his
talents in some other class of scientifical or literary Works during
his residence in Spain, giving up Biblical Enterprises, which may be
useful in other countries, but which in this Kingdom are prejudicial
for very obvious reasons.”