Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

"Cette grande, importante, indispensable concession n'est pas aussi formellement exprimée dans votre lettre du 5; mais les commentaires et développemens de Désages et Glücksberg NE M'ONT Grâces vous en soient rendues."

LAISSÉ AUCUN DOUTE.

It seems, then, that M. Guizot did not himself write these private instructions, or at least that he took care not to express himself "aussi formellement ;" but that he desired M. Désages, his Under-Secretary of State, as well as the Duke de Glücksberg, the Secretary to the French Embassy at Madrid, then at Paris on leave of absence, to write full explanations and commentaries upon the subject of his own instructions, which commentaries and explanations, as M. Bresson says, 66 ne m'ont laissé aucun doute."

This, we think, affords a strong corroboration of the idea above suggested. But what are M. Bresson's next words? "Grâces vous en soient rendues."

Is this the language of a man who has just taken a grave step, without any authority, and solely upon his own responsibility? Is it consistent with the character of a vain man, who, if he had really assumed a heavy responsibility upon himself, would undoubtedly be anxious to receive the exclusive credit of his act, if successful, instead of attributing it to another? And is not the following phrase equally conclusive on this point?

"J'en suis certain, en sondant votre cœur, vous y trouvez le contentement D'AVOIR PRIS CETTE RÉSOLUTION."

It is clear, at least, that M. Bresson really had no doubt upon the subject.

Let us next see in what way M. Guizot treats the matter. If M. Désages and M. de Glücksberg had either written to M. Bresson without authority, or written more than had been authorized, would not M. Guizot at once have said so? But we cannot find, in any of M. Guizot's letters, one word tending even to call in question either the propriety of the conduct of the writers of these commentaries, or the discre

tion of the Ambassador in regulating his conduct by them. And this is certainly a very strong fact of itself.

But perhaps M. Guizot was actuated solely by the desire of not saying anything which could injure either of those two commentators, and, therefore, avoided all mention of them. If so, his motive would have been an amiable one; but he would, at least, have taken good care to prevent the same individuals from being the cause of a second misapprehension of his views on the particular point in question. What are we to say, then, when we see M. de Glücksberg employed by M. Guizot, at the beginning of August, to convey in detail, to the King himself, the views of M. Guizot on this subject? It is clear that what had already occurred had not created any want of confidence in the Duke de Glücksberg on the part of M. Guizot, since he entrusted him with this. very important commission. And it is remarkable that the verbal communication with which M. de Glücksberg was charged to the King, went, in this last case, as well as in the former, beyond what his Majesty thought admissible. The following extracts, taken from No. 13 of the "Revue Rétrospective," pp. 197, 198, prove these facts.

M. Guizot to Louis-Philippe.

EXTRACT.

"Val Richer, Samedi, 8 Août, 1846.

"Jarnac et Glücksberg rendront compte au Roi de mes conversations avec eux sur la conduite et le langage à tenir, à Londres et à Madrid, sur notre grande affaire. Ils ont, je crois, bien compris, et sont prêts à bien comprendre aussi ce que le Roi voudra bien leur dire."

Louis-Philippe to M. Guizot.

EXTRACT.

"Eu, Lundi, 10 Août, 1846,
"2 heures et demie du soir.

"Je possède ici, depuis hier au soir, Jarnac et Glücksberg. L'un va partir pour Londres, l'autre pour le Val Richer. Je regrette beaucoup que vous ne soyez pas venu avec eux, car je crois

qu'alors nous aurions pu finir tout de suite ce qui n'est pas fini, et ce qui ne pourra l'être qu'en retenant Glücksberg à Paris jusqu'à Dimanche ou Lundi, afin que nous puissions nous mettre d'accord, Samedi, aux Tuileries, sur ce que Glücksberg portera à Bresson, relativement à la conduite et au langage à tenir.

"En l'état je ne puis adhérer, ni autoriser, ou donner mon assentiment à ce que Glücksberg m'a développé à cet égard. Je lui ai, à mon tour, développé les motifs de ce refus avec tant de détails que je n'ai aucun doute qu'il ne vous le rende très exactement. Je me bornerai donc, quant à présent, à vous dire qu'il faut se renfermer," &c., as in a previous quotation.

After this, we think it is difficult to doubt that the Duke de Glücksberg's previous commentaries to M. Bresson were not unauthorized by M. Guizot. It can hardly be necessary to remark that M. de Jarnac was naturally entrusted with the account of the language which he was to hold at London, where of course not the most distant allusion would be made to the idea of the double marriage. On the contrary, he was charged to renew the hollow proposal previously made for the joint action of the two Governments to settle the one marriage of the Queen. It was, therefore, to M. de Glücksberg, that M. Guizot gave the commission of explaining his views as to the course to be pursued in Spain; and, upon this point, it is evident that there was a difference of opinion between the King, and his minister. LouisPhilippe expresses regret that M. Guizot had not come to Eu, because it would render necessary the detention of M. de Glücksberg, "afin que nous puissions nous mettre d'accord." Consequently, at that moment, they were not "d'accord." And, since the King was opposed to the "simultanéité,” it follows that M. Guizot must have been in favour of it.

This incident, therefore, serves to confirm the natural conclusion at which we had already arrived. And, if we look at the terms of M. Guizot's letter to the King, of the 22nd of July, written on receipt of his Majesty's two letters of the 20th, we find that he says:

"J'avais déjà écrit à Bresson. Je lui ai ré-écrit. Je lui ai envoyé les propres paroles du Roi.”

There is no mention, here, of any reprimand of M. Bresson, nor even so much as the expression, on M. Guizot's part, of any surprise at his conduct. M. Guizot contents himself with enclosing to M. Bresson Louis-Philippe's letters; and replies, to the King, that he thinks M. Bresson did not go so far as his Majesty supposes. We have no means of knowing with what commentaries, or explanations M. Guizot accompanied the transmission, to M. Bresson, of the King's letters; but M. Bresson's answer shows, very clearly, that M. Guizot's letter did not express either surprise, disapprobation, or uneasiness at the step which had been taken. In a letter dated Madrid, July 26th, 1846 (see "Revue Rétrospective," No. 13, page 197), he says to M. Guizot

"Je répondrai donc à tête reposée quand je vous renverrai, par une occasion sûre, les lettres du Roi. En attendant, TRANQUILLISEZ SA MAJESTÉ. Il n'a jamais été question de conclusion simultanément définitive, ni d'engagement positif avant discussion des articles."

This shows that M. Guizot had not passed any very severe censure, of his own, on the ambassador's conduct. M. Bresson says “tranquillisez Sa Majesté,” not “tranquillisez vous ;" and, in fact, it is clear that M. Guizot did not require tranquillizing. In transmitting M. Bresson's letter to the King, he says, under date "Val Richer. Lundi, 3 Août, 1846, 9 heures du matin "

"Voici des lettres de Bresson qui rassureront le Roi sur son langage quand à la simultanéité de la conclusion définitive des deux mariages. J'aurais été bien étonné qu'il se fût engagé comme le Roi l'avait craint."

Thus it seems that M. Guizot looked upon the matter as fully and satisfactorily explained. It appears, however, that the King took a different view of the question; since, in his letter of the 10th of August to M. Guizot, he says:

"Il ne faut pas se dissimuler que le coup de tête de Bresson y a ajouté (selon moi sans aucune utilité) un embarras fort regrettable."

And we have already seen, in the extracts above quoted

from the same letter, that his Majesty refused to agree, sanction, or assent to the plan proposed to him by M. Guizot through the medium of the Duke of Glücksberg. Upon reading the latter part of M. Bresson's letter of July 26th, an extract of which we have just quoted, we cannot feel surprised at the dissatisfaction of the King. After the sentence above-cited, M. Bresson adds:

66

"Il y a eu promesse d'aider, au besoin, un nom par l'autre, de les faire concourir, paraître ensemble dans toute combinaison conforme à notre principe; et l'indication d'une parfaite liberté d'époque. C'est ce que je trouve très nettement exprimé dans une lettre de Glücksberg du 15 Juillet, me RENDANT COMPTE D'UNE CONVERSATION AVEC VOUS-lettre que j'ai en ce moment sous les yeux, et dont je vous adresserai aussi un extrait.”

This extract shows two things:-1. That there can be no room to doubt that the commentaries of M. de Glücksberg were authorized by M. Guizot; and 2. That it was impossible for M. Guizot to express to M. Bresson any disapprobation of the step which he had taken.

But let us compare the language of this extract with the engagements made at the Château d'Eu, that the marriage of the Duke of Montpensier to the Infanta should not take place until Queen Isabella was married, and had had issue; and then ask whether the plan therein set forth is perfectly consistent with the spirit of those engagements? No one, we think, can doubt that the understanding of those engagements, at the time when they were made, was that the two marriages should be entirely separate transactions; and, consequently, the plan of making the two" concourir, paraître ensemble," if it did not amount to a direct breach of the letter of the engagement, was "keeping the word of promise to the ear, but breaking it to the hope." And the "indication d'une parfaite liberté d'époque" was, as the result subsequently proved, little better than M. Guizot's famous quibble to Lord Normanby respecting his assurance, given on the 1st of September, that the two marriages would not take place at the same time, viz., that the Queen would be married the first of the two. We would request our readers

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »