^{page 105 note 1} The Times, 03 20, 1823.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 1} See P.R.O. France, 288Google Scholar, Stuart's dispatches from Paris, especially that of March 13, received in London on the 16th. Chateaubriand is there said to have told him on the morning of March 13 ‘that all his endeavours to prevent a rupture having failed, the army will cross the frontier in the beginning of April,’ as actually happened.

See also P.R.O. Spain, 270Google Scholar, A'Court to Canning, , 03 2Google Scholar, received 13th: ‘I fear we may now consider a war as inevitable.’

^{page 106 note 2} The Times, 03 19, 1823.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 3} Wellington Disp. ii. 72Google Scholar, Canning, 's letter to Wellington, of 03 20, 1823.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} I forbear to enter here upon any discussion as to Wellington's conduct at Verona, because that would require a paper of its own. Meantime I may draw the attention of the curious to Acton, 's Historical Essays and Studies, p. 476.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 2} British Museum Treaties, xix., Parliamentary Papers, 1823.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 3} Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 869 and 706.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 4} Ibid. 897.

^{page 107 note 5} The Times, 04 16, 1823.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} Parliamentary Papers, No. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} Canning, , 04 14.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} See Wellington Disp. ii. pp. 72, 74, 87.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Hansard, N.S., 1179.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 1343Google Scholar. Perhaps Hobhouse states more accurately in his diary that he ‘went to Venice and had a look at the Congress of Verona,’ (Recollections of a Long Life,’ iii. 9. London, 1910)Google Scholar. It cannot have been much more than ‘a look,’ as he would not have been allowed to stay there. I am unable to decipher Verona on his passport (British Museum MSS. 36459)Google Scholar. Sir Robert Wilson was in Paris in September 1822, and he foresaw that war was inevitable if the ultra party in France remained in power. (See his correspondence with Grey, Lord, British Museum Add. MSS. 30124.)Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Ibid. vol. viii. 1061. There is an interesting dispatch to be found in the Embassy Archives of Madrid. Writing to Bathurst, on 09 10, 1822Google Scholar, A'Court relates the substance of a conversation he has had with San Miguel, the Spanish Foreign Minister, who was very disquieted about the Conferences to be held at Vienna. A'Court says: ‘I explained to his Excellency that I had no official notice of the holding of a Congress for the purpose of discussing the affairs of Spain.’ It is not difficult to appreciate the full force of his meaning.

^{page 111 note 1} Nettement, , Histoire de la Restauration, tome vi. 291Google Scholar, footnote. Of course there are many proofs in the French archives of the intentions of the Powers in respect to Spain. I will but furnish one. It is the précis of a conversation between Laferronnays, the French ambassador at St. Petersburg, , and the Czar, , held on 08 14, 1822Google Scholar. A report of this conversation was immediately transmitted to Paris. Alexander is declared to have said: ‘Quant à la question d'Espagne, mon cher ambassadeur, elle est d'une nature plus grave encore peut-être et plus alarmante [than Greece]. C'est sur elle surtout qu'il est d'une haute importance que nous soyons tous d'accord, et que l'action soit commune. Ce n'est donc qu'au Congrès, lorsque nous serons tous réunis, que nous pourrons tous nous communiquer nos idées, qu'il sera possible de juger s'il est moyen d'être utile au Roi d'Espagne sans le compromettre.’ (Russie, 164, Arch. Paris.)Google Scholar It is significant that the French instructions in regard to Spain, and Spain only, were drawn up in the handwriting of Villèle. (Vérone, 721, Arch. Paris.)Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} Wellington Disp. i. 284Google Scholar, Bathurst, to Wellington, , 09 14, 1822.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 1} See Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 1070 and 1222–7Google Scholar, and Wellington's Speeches, London, 1854.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} P.R.O. Continent, 48Google Scholar; Wellington, 's dispatch of 09 21.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} Yonge, C. D., Life of Lord Liverpool, iii. 196Google Scholar; Gleig, , Life of Wellington, p. 421Google Scholar. The Times deprecated his being sent to Vienna in 1822 on the ground that his professional prejudices and tendencies leant towards despotism. Alava hit the nail on the head when he said that Wellington ‘ought never to have had anything to do with politics.’

^{page 114 note 1} Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 840.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} Ibid. 708.

^{page 114 note 3} Ibid. 871.

^{page 115 note 1} Hansard, N.S., 1070.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 2} Hansard states that the additional papers were laid before Parliament on April 21. Unless we can convict the entire Press of being in the wrong, it would seem that they were presented on the evening of the 22nd.

^{page 116 note 1} Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 1060.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} Brougham had drawn the attention of the House to Chateaubriand's speech and put a question to Canning about it. Canning's reply was that Chateaubriand had mutilated the document, which is true.

^{page 117 note 1} That is Canning's description of his disingenuous speech. See his reply to Col. Davies, N. S. W. in the House, 04 10Google Scholar, Hansard, vol. viii. 801.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Morning Chronicle, 04 18, 1823Google Scholar; cf. also the leader in the same paper of the 19th. ‘Was his Grace, a Cabinet Minister, seized at Verona with an opportune forgetfulness of the information respecting the cause of the civil war existing along the frontier, as he so opportunely forgot at Paris that he was sent to protest against interference in the affairs of Spain?’ On the other hand, The Morning Post and The New Times seem to have acquiesced in Canning's version.

^{page 119 note 1} Metternich, , Mémoires, t. iv. 7, 1881.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 2} For Castlereagh's instructions with regard to Spain see Wellington Disp. i. 286.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 3} Writing to SirWellesley, Henry, 09 16, 1823Google Scholar, Canning says: ‘We protested at Laybach; we remonstrated at Verona. Our protests were treated as waste paper; our remonstrances mingled with the air. Pretty influence! and much worth preserving.’ Stapleton, A. G., George Canning and his Times, p. 377.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 1} Even Canning admitted this. On September 27 he wrote to Wellington in respect of the probability of the separation of France from the Allies: ‘But something has occurred since your Grace's departure, tending so strongly to confirm the views of policy under which those heads of instructions were drawn that I think it right to lose no time in reporting to you these occurrences for your Grace's information and guidance.’ (Wellington Disp. i. 301.)Google Scholar It is clear that Canning knew a great deal more about these instructions than he cared to own.

^{page 122 note 1} Villèle, , Mém. 1904, iii. 63, 65.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 2} Ibid. iii. 65; Wellington Disp. i. 340.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Wellington arrived in Paris at 1.30 P.M. on September 20, and left on the morning of the 22nd, not, as he stated, on Tuesday the 23rd, which, by the way, fell on a Monday.

^{page 123 note 2} These were the two great highroads, traversed by mails, and provided with post-horses. They were macadamised in 1837, but I have been unable to obtain information as to their condition in 1822.

^{page 123 note 3} France, 721, September 25, Montmorency to Hermann, Arch. Paris.

^{page 123 note 4} Villèle, , Mém. iii. 53Google Scholar; Montmorency, 's dispatch of 09 14.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 5} The Times, 08 30, 1822.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 1} Canning only accepted the seals of office within forty-eight hours of Wellington's departure.

^{page 124 note 2} P.R.O. Continent, 48.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 3} For reports of these conversations see Villèle, , Mém. iii. 59–65Google Scholar, and Wellington Disp. i. 288–294.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 1} P.R.O. Continent, 48Google Scholar; Canning, 's dispatch of 09 24.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 2} Londonderry, 's dispatch of 09 13.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 3} P.R.O. Continent, 48Google Scholar; Canning, 's dispatch of 09 26Google Scholar. ‘I am thus particular in mentioning the separate arrival of the French chargé d'affaires, because I since know it to have been studiously contrived by him.’ The same dispatch in Wellington Disp. vi. 301Google Scholar omits the full force of this by failing to italicise the words as they are underlined in the original MSS.

^{page 125 note 4} Canning, it seems, was not aware of this, else surely he would have mentioned it in his dispatch. The Royal Ordinance transforming the sanitary cordon into a corps d'observation was signed on 09 22Google Scholar. It was not published in the Moniteur till the 25th. Sir Charles Stuart's dispatch informing Canning was written on the 26th. Villele deliberately hastened the execution of this measure, which he did not wish to appear the work of the Alliance. See Espagne, , 717Google Scholar, Vill. disp. of September 28 and October 14, Arch. Paris.

^{page 126 note 1} P.R.O. Spain, 254Google Scholar; Castlereagh, 's dispatch of 01 15, 1822Google Scholar. P.R.O. Sicily, 98, 02 9Google Scholar. A'Court acknowledges letters of recall.

^{page 126 note 2} Hervey was not recalled. He applied on August 15, 1822, for leave to return home on the ground of ill-health, so soon as A'Court should arrive (P.R.O. Spain, 257)Google Scholar. Replying to this letter on September 5, Bathurst said that he saw no objection to his absenting himself on leave from his post. (P.R.O. Spain, 254.)Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 3} Hansard, N.S., vol. viii. 845Google Scholar; Liverpool, 's speech of 04 14Google Scholar. It is of importance to notice that A'Court had received instructions to lose no time in repairing immediately to Madrid, ‘in consequence of the strong conviction, on the minds of His Majesty's Government, of the expediency of his being at his post before the commencement of the discussions at Vienna-Verona,’ and that these instructions were given to him ‘before’ the Allies made their representation. Of course Canning makes no allusion to this.

^{page 127 note 1} France, Boislecomte, , 722Google Scholar, Arch. Paris.

^{page 127 note 2} P.R.O. France, 273Google Scholar; Stuart, 's dispatches of 08 22 and 29, 1822.Google Scholar