Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/585

 1920 WELLINGTON AT VERONA 577 2 December. But of Wellington's supposed change of attitude there is not the smallest trace. All the evidence points the other way, and Metternich's language suggests rather a man who feels that he has not met with proper support in a quarter where he expected it, than a man speaking of a diplomatic ally or of a diplo- matic tool. If Lord Acton's accusation that Wellington during the congress was urging the Frenchmen on to war with Spain were true, it would supply a ground for Metternich's attitude, since the latter disliked the idea of a Franco -Spanish war almost, if not quite, as much as Canning. But in view of the complete silence of Montmorency and Chateaubriand on this subject, the accusation must be held to be not proven. The loss of Montmorency's account of Verona is doubtless irreparable, but it is noteworthy that the historian who had the advantage of using it affords no sup- port to the theory that Wellington was leading a double life at Verona.^ Finally Gentz, who as secretary to the congress was well acquainted with the course of events, gives exactly the same picture of Wellington's behaviour as the two French ambassadors, and his tone in speaking of the duke does not seem to imply that the latter had at all fallen in with Austrian views.^ If, then, it is not true that Wellington contributed to the failure of English diplomacy at Verona by his disloyalty, what is the truth about his attitude and work at this last of the great congresses ? The difficulties in his way were enormous, and his path was not smoothed by his own unfortunate action in allowing himself to be drawn into discussions on the military side of the affair, an action that was unfortunate because it produced an entirely erroneous impression on his hearers' minds. In spite of this mistake, however, he was by no means so inefficient a diplomatist as Metternich thought him. It is worthy of note that at least one good judge of men and their abilities rated him high,^ and in view of the absolute determination of Alexander, Montmorency, and Metternich to intervene in some way in the Peninsula (though they differed as to the method), ^ Nettement, Histoire de la Bestauration, vi. 273, tells us that Wellington kept scrupulously within the limits of his instructions, and gives us a picture of the duke (in a foot-note quoting Montmorency) ' feuilletant sans cesse ses instructions ' during sittings of the congress and ' y revenant imperturbablement quand on croyait lui avoir fait faire quelques pas en avant '. '^ e. g. ' Was nun vollends in England beschlossen werden wird — etwas Gutes sicher nicht — das weiss nur der — Gott sei bei uns — Teufel, der dies Gouvemement jetzt allein regiert. Ich babe Grund zu glauben dass sogar Canning, der zwischen Gott und dem Teufel mitten inne steht, endlich aber doch wohl diesem anheim fallen wird, noch gar nicht mit sich einig ist : und Wellington ist wahrhaftig nicht der Mann der ihm irgend einen gescheidten Rath. . . geben konnte' (quoted from Gentz's journal in Schmidt- Weissenfels, Gentz, ii. 229). This, written in the latter part of November, also seems to show that the inner circle of the congress was still far from being completely reassured as to England's future course of conduct. VOL. XXXV. — NO. CXL. P p
 * Gallatin, A Great Peacemaker, p. 104.