Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/209

192a WELLINGTON AND CONGRESS OF VERONA 201 design of invading Spain, Wellington may even have supplied them with a plan of campaign, placing at their disposal his unrivalled military talents, and his expert knowledge of that country which was the object of their joint deliberations. With the explanation then in our hands, let us examine these criticisms in their order. 1. Our first criticism was that the protest of 30 October was for all practical purposes withdrawn. This is by no means to say that the paper was actually withdrawn in the sense that the copies then in circulation were restored to their author. For if this were the case, we should be hard put to it to explain how it comes about that a copy has found its way into the French foreign office. All I mean to say is that from 30 October to 25 February this paper remained in what we may choose to call a state of suspended animation . Circumstances , and circumstances too of a kind which no one could possibly have foreseen, first made it possible and then made it necessary to include this paper among the official correspondence tabled in our houses of parlia- ment. Now if we follow the history of Wellington's paper we shall see that it had a startling career before it. It was read twice before the conference, once on the night of 30 October, and once again at the first general conference of the 31st. It was so warmly resented at the time that it required all Metter- nich's skill to prevent a rupture then and there. During the next three weeks it was exposed to merciless criticism. But what is more to our purpose, it drew from Montmorency a reply. That reply was read to Wellington on 2 November ; a copy was handed to him on the 21st ; and on the 26th he transmitted a copy to Canning.^ We are at once led to inquire why it was that Wellington had to wait three weeks before obtaining a copy of Montmorency's paper. If we confine our attention for a moment to the events of those three weeks, we may perhaps discover an answer to this question. November 2 is an important date in the history of these negotiations, and that for three reasons. At the outset we have Montmorency's paper. This raises three questions : to whom it was largely due, for what purpose it was written, and, if there was any opposition to it, of what nature was that opposition. Happily we are able to give an answer to all three questions. Montmorency no doubt was highly exasperated at the character and tone of Wellington's paper, but it was Pozzo di Borgo who presented him with an unanswerable case for present action. That passionate but astute diplomatist was at pains to point out that France as well as Great Britain was governed by parlia- mentary forms, and that were the British note to come to the ' This is all the more curious because a copy was sent to Villele on 6 November.