sommes pas
presses,' Palmerston replied in his most insolent tone, 'Et nous
ne sommes pas presses non plus; si vous ne craignez pas les
batiments anglais, vous sentez bien que nous ne craignons pas les
batiments francais....'[10]

[10] [This was untrue, as appears by the next entry.]

March 5th, 1841 {p.381}

[Page Head: PROTOCOL AND CONVENTION SIGNED.]

At the Cabinet dinner the day before yesterday, Palmerston
announced that 'everything was going on well, everybody
satisfied,' and as this rose-coloured aspect of affairs was so
inconsistent with the gloom and discontent of Bourqueney and
Buelow, and the account given me by Dedel, I resolved to call on
Bourqueney, and find out from him in what position the affair
stood. I did so, and the result proved with what caution one
ought to listen to the reports of persons the best informed, and
who relate what they have heard with the most veracious
intentions. Instead of correcting or expunging what I have said
above, I shall put down the substance of what Bourqueney said to
me, which agrees with much of Dedel's account, but differs in
some very important particulars. I told him that I had (as he
would be sure) no desire to _fourrer_ myself into his affairs,
but that I thought a little conversation between us might be
useful in promoting the object we had in common--that of
restoring amicable relations between the two countries; and
having seen how annoyed he was on Sunday last, and knowing what
had passed, I wished to know if he was not _now_ better satisfied
than he was _then_; and that as I, and those with whom I
communicated, only knew what passed between him and Palmerston,
or at the conferences, from Palmerston's own reports, when he
told his colleagues just what he pleased and no more, and as I
had heard from other quarters an account of his interview on
Sunday with Palmerston, I wished to know what had really passed.
He had, he said, been extremely annoyed and disappointed, after
being told that he was to have the Protocol (by Buelow and
Esterhazy, of course), when Palmerston told him this was out of
the question, as Chekib refused to sign it without orders. He
then gave me the conversation between himself and Palmerston,
which does not appear to have been acrimonious, and instead of
Palmerston's having made that insolent speech which was put in
his mouth when Bourqueney said, 'Mais nous ne sommes pas
presses,' he only said, 'Ni nous non plus, c'est l'A