France will take the
Convention?' to which Palmerston replied, he had no doubt she
would, as it had been put into his hands by Esterhazy, who had
probably already communicated it to Bourqueney. But he did not
tell the Cabinet that he had agreed at the Conference to the
Protocol likewise, and had left his foreign colleagues under the
impression that it would be agreed to by the Cabinet.

On Sunday night Buelow and Bourqueney met Normanby at Lady
Holland's, when they both spoke to him in the strongest terms,
more especially Buelow; who said it was very painful to him to
complain to Normanby of the conduct of Palmerston, and he would
not repeat what had passed at the Conference, but he must tell
him if Palmerston continued to conduct himself as he did, the
most fatal consequences would ensue, and the affairs of Europe
would become more embroiled and be in a more perilous state than
they had ever been yet. He frightened Normanby so much that the
next morning he went off to Melbourne, told him what had passed,
and entreated him to interfere. Melbourne promised he would, but
of course he will not; and Palmerston will probably not care a
straw what he says, or be in the slightest degree biassed by any
opinion he may express. As far as I can guess, Bourqueney's
excessive discontent arises from this: He very naturally wants
this Protocol, and Buelow and Esterhazy, no doubt, told him that
Palmerston had consented to it and would propose it to him;
whereas, in their conference on Sunday, Palmerston probably
offered him the Convention but did not say a word about the
Protocol, and this both he and Buelow consider a great breach of
faith. Notwithstanding the good reason which there really is for
not formally dissolving the alliance till all the arrangements
concerning Egypt and Syria are completed, it is easy to
understand that in the present temper of France it would be
impossible for Guizot to enter into any relations with the other
Powers till their separate and exclusive alliance is at an end.
It is no wonder, therefore, that Bourqueney looks upon the
Protocol as an essential condition of his acceptance of the
Convention; and if he has been first given to understand that the
Protocol was admitted, and then told by Palmerston that it could
not be, he might naturally be indignant. One never knows what
else Palmerston may have said nor what tone he may have taken.

[Page Head: A MISREPORTED SPEECH.]

While these difficulties