202 WELLINGTON AND THE AprU knowledge of parliament the reputation of France would suffer if she could not at once show that never for a moment had she admitted its application to the affairs of Spain. And there was so much reason and cogency in this argument that it was in vain that Mettemich and Wellington, anxious above all things to preserve the unity of the alliance, urged Montmorency to abandon his intention. The French minister gave Wellington full and fair warning that if his paper of 30 October was inserted in the protocol, he must expect to find there the French reply. The date, 2 November, moreover, is important not merely because of Montmorency's paper, but because it was on that very day that Wellington first offered to withdraw his own.^ He expressed his readiness to withdraw his paper if the other powers would withdraw theirs. The proposal was not accepted. It was vetoed by the Russians. Here again we have a pretty problem. Why did Nesselrode, Pozzo, and Tatistcheff veto this proposal ? On a priori groimds, at any rate, it was to their interest to accept it. Of one thing we may be sure : it was not due to any change of opinion on their part. They disliked Wellington's note on 30 October, and they disliked it every bit as much on 2 November. The explanation seems to lie in their suspicion of Mettemich. They had already begun to observe that close co-operation between Mettemich and Wellington to which allusion has been made. They were aware of the change which had come over Wellington since Montmorency's paper of the 20th. They knew that both Montmorency and Wellington were anxious to return home as quickly as possible, that the congress had met five weeks late, and that, if the British offer were accepted, three weeks more of valuable time would have been spent in fruitless negotia- tion. Behind Wellington's proposal they appear to have seen the controlling brain of Mettemich, and in the condition attaching to his proposal a clever move on the part of the Austrian chancellor to break up the congress before any decisions had been come to on the subject of Spain.^ Lastly, let us note the presence of Wellington. He is there on 2 November ; we shall meet him again on 20 November. But in the interval if we search for his name in the roll-call of the conferences, we shall search in vain. How are we to explain his Villele, Mhnoirta, iii. 199. Montmorency'a dispatch of 11 November: ' Vous avez vu cette demiere r6ponse a nos demandes, qui est si mauvaise et que le due voudrait lui-meme retirer.* See also Archives Nationales, France, Boislecomte 720 ; and Wellington, Supplementary Despatches, i. 488, Lord Londonderry's memorandum of 3 November. For Wellington's account of all this see his dispatch of 5 November, ibid. p. 492.
- Arch. Nat., Boislecomte 720. Cf. also Villele, Mimoire8,u. 162. Montmorency's
dispatch of 28 October and Lord Londonderry's memorandum no. 3 of 3 November (Wellington, Suppl. Desp. L 486).
