King of Holland resolved to follow up this determination by a bold stroke; he declared the armistice to be at an end, and despatched an army of 50,000 men to the frontier. Thereupon began a fresh crisis of considerable. acuteness. Without consulting the Allies, Louis Philippe sent a force to the assistance of the Belgians under Marshal Gérard, and it was only by the exercise of the utmost promptitude that Sir Robert Adair, the English ambassador, prevented the outbreak of hostilities which could hardly have failed to resolve themselves eventually into a European war.

Even though the situation was saved for the moment, there appeared for the second time during the negotiations an imminent possibility of war between England and France. Marshal Gérard was in possession, and the French Government declared that he could not possibly be withdrawn without a quid pro quo. While Périer was plausibly explaining to Lord Granville that the departure of the French troops would be followed by the overthrow of his ministry, unless some salve was offered to the vanity of his countrymen; Talleyrand was hinting at the partition of Belgium between France, Prussia, and Holland; while Sebastiani, braggart to the last, though consenting to withdraw 20,000 men from Belgium, stated that a decision must be taken on the destiny of the frontier fortresses before the French army would entirely evacuate the country. Lord Palmerston's reply was decided in the extreme. He pointed out to Lord Granville that "the only value to England of Périer and his Cabinet was that they were believed to be lovers of peace, and observers of treaties; but if they were to be merely puppets, put up to play the part cast for them by the violent party, what was it to England whether they stood or fell? " To Sebastiani it was

explained that the French pretensions with regard to the fortresses were utterly inadmissible. They had been built by the Allies at a great cost and as a barrier against French aggression, and it was therefore impossible to make France a party to the treaty for their demolition. To dismantle them while the French had them in possession would be a disgrace to the five Powers. At the same time Palmerston promised, that if the French would withdraw, the Powers would lose no time in beginning the discussion with Leopold for the purpose of selecting the fortresses to be dismantled. The weakest point in Palmerston's position was that Leopold was anxious that a portion of the French troops should remain for his protection, but by the conclusion of a six weeks' armistice between Holland and Belgium, the Foreign Secretary was able to obviate any objections that might be raised either by the French or Belgian Governments against the departure of Gérard. His mingled conciliation and firmness gained the day, and on the 15th of September, Talleyrand told the Plenipotentiaries that all the French troops would be immediately withdrawn from Belgium.

Though the obstinacy of the Dutch King delayed the final establishment of Belgian independence, there was no longer any danger of a rupture between England and France, and the rapprochement between the two Powers greatly facilitated the last stages of the negotiations. A fresh set of conditions, known as the Twentyfour Articles, were agreed upon by the Conference on the 14th of October, and, on the 15th of the following month, embodied in a formal treaty which the Powers were to enforce upon Holland and Belgium, if either of them refused to accept it. As might be expected, the conduct of the Dutch King had not strengthened his

cause. He was now required to surrender part of Luxemburg in exchange for a portion of Limburg, to give the Belgians a free passage through Maestricht and the free navigation of the Scheldt. It was in vain that during the following year Holland attempted to detach first Prussia and then Russia from the European concert; Prussia was afraid to act alone, and Russia was bound to Britain by pecuniary ties, which Palmerston seized the first opportunity to renew. At the same time he

made one more effort to smooth away difficulties, and his Thème, as the document was called in which he attempted a final compromise between the rival Governments, is one of the finest examples that the State. Papers can furnish of his power of manipulating the minutiæ of diplomacy. Its ungracious rejection by the Dutch Plenipotentiaries placed them completely in the wrong, and enabled the Western Powers to resort to immediate coercion. In September, 1832, Talleyrand and Palmerston had exhausted their stock of patience, and, unsupported by the representatives of the other Powers, who withdrew from the Conference, they decided that the time for action had come. The King

of Holland was informed that if the Dutch would not retire from the citadel of Antwerp before the 12th of November, force would be employed. With commendable punctuality a French army corps under Gérard marched on Antwerp, while an English fleet blocked the Scheldt. After a bombardment, the citadel surrendered on the 23rd of December; and though the King of Holland declined to recognise the kingdom of Belgium until seven years later, its existence was none the less an assured fact.

The verdict of posterity has recognised that the creation of a free Belgium was almost exclusively the work

of Palmerston, and has reckoned it as perhaps the greatest of his many great achievements. To the people of his generation it did not appear in quite so satisfactory a light. It seemed to them that the employment of force robbed the arrangement of much of its credit. The spectacle of two powerful nations combining to coerce a weak people is seldom calculated to provoke enthusiasm, and it was remembered that if the Dutch had been left to themselves they would have beaten the Belgians out of the field. Lord Palmerston, in a speech made on Feb. 18th, 1833, justly complained that

He had been ridiculed on all hands, and held up to the derision of that House and that of the country; but the country was too enlightened to ridicule him for endeavouring to preserve peace by protocols, as it had been called. The hon. member for Essex had talked contemptuously of his hammering out protocols; he found fault with the Ministers' adherence to pacific counsels; and he was no less displeased, it appeared, with the departure from them in the case of the attack on Antwerp. Whether they attempted to preserve the peace of Europe, so much endangered by the quarrel of the Dutch and Belgians-whether they endeavoured to preserve peace by persuasion or by force, the course which they thought it advisable to pursue was equally distasteful to these hon. gentlemen. He trusted, however, that the House and the people would better appreciate their endeavours to prevent a war in Europe, and the conflict of political principles which would inevitably have arisen if such a war had taken place.

Moreover, of the coercing Powers, France had taken the more brilliant share in the combined operations; and the memories of Waterloo were too recent for the more hot-headed of Englishmen, among whom might be reckoned King William, to be able to contemplate with equanimity the spectacle of England putting up with the second place when France had the first; indeed, they would barely contemplate the idea

of an Anglo-French alliance at all. These vapourings found, however, but little voice in the House of Commons, where an attack on Palmerston's treatment of the Dutch, which was made on the motion of Sir Robert Peel, collapsed completely.

The wise government of King Leopold completed the stability of the edifice which Palmerston had set up, "his experimental little Belgian monarchy," as it was called at the time; and when the year 1848 witnessed a second opening of the flood-gates of revolution, Belgium was one of the very few of the monarchies of Europe which was not temporarily submerged. Under the prudent rule of Leopold's son, the arrangement has held good down to our day, but its existence appears to be imperilled now that the nation chiefly interested in its continuance is inferior in military strength to those which might be disposed to its violation. This much must be said of Lord Palmerston's creation, even by the most hostile critic: that it was in accordance with justice, that it was in accordance with expediency, and that it has stood thus far the test of time.

* This feeling found expression in "H. B.'s" cartoons, in one of which Lord Palmerston is depicted as a blind man led by the French poodle Talleyrand to the brink of a precipice.